Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 6 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarchy/Archive_6

Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

alleged benefits of patriarchy

Is there a source for the last sentence--about arguments for the social utility of patriarchy found in Akkadian and Babylonian records?--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is it?--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the feminist critique of patriarchy and its origins excluded

Where is the section dealing with patriarchy according to the theories of Martitja Gambutas, Riane Eisler and others? Why is this not covered?John D. Croft (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because we need you to contribute from the sources you are familiar with. Please write in Gambutas. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, could you put some ideas here for discussion? Please include where you think the material would fit. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section

I've deleted some rather trite and loaded material regarding some Greek philosophers. The section needs a more apt title, because it doesn't describe the history of patriarchy, but something even better: a literature review of reflection on the topic of patriarchy. Also, to its credit, it starts reasonably early, though older sources are certainly available.

It is, of course, a synthesis of published material, but that is precisely what Wiki always is and must be. There are elements of it, like the early parts I read and deleted, which imply conclusions for which no source is provided. A source must be provided, to demonstrate that the synthesis is not original. That's no longer any problem with the deleted material, because it was simply off topic anyway.

Enough work has been done on this article that it's worth reviewing, rather than simply restoring the rated article from the edit history. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trite and loaded? Judgment and sentence, all in one fell swoop. How typical. You have made it clear in the past what your stance is, so this deletion can hardly be seen as unbiased.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without those sections, Aristotle's focus and agenda remains submerged. If anything this can be re-written. It is already sourced, so your comments about sources are troubling.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll work on some suggestions for reorganization of the sections you mentioned. It could also have another title. I'll think about that as well. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop it Alistair. And do not threaten me about my actions being used against me. Threats are, apparently, all you have going for you. I told you to discuss things and you have been told that by the administrators who banned you. Get in line.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be a coincidence, but at the same time Alistair started his most recent attacks here, an editor named 'Ari' began the same sort of thing on the 'Virgin birth (mythology) article.' Since then he has moved and rewritten the article without consensus. His most recent discussion is on the 'Miraculous birth' article. I don't know if it is Alistair, but Alistair has threatened me and the general tone is the same. Also, Ari keeps sending me private messages threatening to block me from editing. I think it is because he has no right to block me.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I have to say is you are a paranoid individual. Maybe you could write a Wikipedia page about the elaborate conspiracy theory you have about myself. That said, could you refrain from attempting to attack me on various talk pages as that is not their purpose. Thankyou. --Ari (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because two editors revert your edits on two different articles, that doesn't mean you should assume they are sockpuppets. Pushing heavily religious views here, you will see many reverts. SpigotMap 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ari and SpigotMap, I am requesting that you stop leaving private warnings and threats of your blocking me. If you have somehting of importance to say, say it in the appropriate discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not pretend that this about two editors reverting edits. You know very well that is not what this is about. It is about two editors who will not answer specific criticisms about the article organization and content. It is about two editors who use unfair tactics. It is about two editors who won't work with others.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is also about two editors who don't even realize they have revealed themselves by carrying their discussion here, of all places.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will continue to be warned if you continue your incivility. Your talk page is not private. No one is using unfair tactics, and I haven't even looked at the content dispute. I just know that judging by the edit histories, you are carrying on an edit war and have a problem with assuming good faith against other editors. There is no conspiracy here, there is no one "private messaging" you. There is no one threatening you. The warnings on your page are not threats, it is a fact. If you continue to attack other editors, you will be blocked. SpigotMap 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are making up things about incivility. Do you think people can't read? They should read the discussion and make up their own minds. This is the last exchange I have with either of you on personal charges. This is the point: Ari moved the Virgin Birth (mythology) article without consensus. He rewrote and Christianity and Judaism sections and put them at the top, making it a Christian-centered article. It is not in a Christianity project. It is in a religions project. He threatened to rewrite the Egypt section by asking for page numbers for sources. They were provided, by the way. He is unfailingly rude. He has never answered any of these charges although they have been repeated many times.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So go fix it. Ari doesn't have to ask your permission to edit the article, as you don't have to ask theirs. Ari can also remove disputed information if it's no sourced properly, in which case if you want it there, then source it. You don't own any article here, and Ari doesn't have to answer to any charges, even though it looks like they have. If they are disruptive, bring up their actions at WP:ANI but do not continue to be uncivil or attack other editors. SpigotMap 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't work that way with him. He changes it back. When there is a dispute of the magnitude, there needs to be a calm discussion before changes are made. So far that has not taken place and I have no confidence he will be reasonable. Did you read the part where he moved and rewrote the article over my objections?--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spigot, please leave Hammy alone. What you say about him is quite true, but he is a victim, not a perpetrator. In my opinion he has simply swallowed whole, personal attacks made against me by others. Those personal attacks were mishandled by the best authorities, so it's all a bit tricky. Please leave Hammy alone, but please keep this article on your watchlist. Your grasp of Wiki principles is heartwarming. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content discussion

The bickering is silly and is going nowhere.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, Hammy, for being so slow to get back to you. I work on many articles and with many people and this article is fairly low priority. You are not low priority, to me, I'm just busy, sorry again.
In reply to your heading, Hammy, if you are suggesting I can't use sources other than Goldberg, that's quite incorrect. Susan Pinker is the most current publisher of the "hormones drive competitive gendered behaviour" theory. Catherine Hakim is the source that says Goldberg's theory is "proved". But, Goldberg is just one POV. He is still contested. The important thing is, it is an academic convention, as no doubt you know, to acknowledge the first person who proposed a theory. So I have no problems at all about using sources other than Goldberg, both to criticise his (and others') POV and to present alternative POVs.
It would, of course, be a problem if someone could not bring themself to use Goldberg, since Wikipedia is neutral and provides reliable sources of all points of view. Since Goldberg's theory is essentially the original source of the current consensus theory across many related academic disciplines, we'd look either ignorant or biased not to acknowledge his Guiness Book of Records winning PhD thesis and metastudy, which is referenced in government policy advisor's academic works.
Hammy, you are one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I have met. I have not yet met anyone who was willing to BUY a copy of a book to verify material in an article. And a book buy the "opposition" at that. I cannot say strongly enough how very much I admire that, and how very much that is an example to every editor at this project. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have an addition to the article, please put it here for discussion. I propose things for discussion myself. I don't know of a problem with the sources you mentioned, except the part where Goldberg's theory is "proved." How is this relevant? The proof of a theory is not a qualification for use here. Proof of any particular viewpoint has not been an issue with any of the current material in the article. As your last comment is written, it is an argument in favor of patriarchy itself, not about the source to be used. This is the problem. The article already contains patriarchal viewpoints. This would be one more addition and should be presented without bias, and not as a final coup de grace, or would it be coup d'e-tat, in favor of any one view.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alistair, I appreciate your recent comments and encouragment. You can write and you have a lot of ideas--I just hope you will use your talent in a way that helps you and helps others. --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just like you Hammy, that's precisely what I've been doing since joining Wikipedia. It's not all politics around here, but that does happen. Normally pretty well, but nothing's ever perfect. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please read discussion from Third opinion section above, and also the following section. I'm afraid people won't notice what is happening because it is taking place in the body of the discussion. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content discussion continued

Many pages at Wikipedia get little traffic to the talk page, Hammy. Patriarchy doesn't get all that much, which is kind of surprising, but that's the way it is. If you want to get the attention of a particular editor, talk pages help, even if you're both working at the same article. Article talk pages normally work OK, but sometimes need refactoring, as I've noticed you're particularly good at.
There are two things I want to do at this page, not in the next week, but probably about a week away. Firstly, I want to try to find a reliable secondary source regarding the history of advocacy for patriarchy. You've made a good start on that, looking back to Athens no less. However, I'm pretty sure the Stoics will say a lot more about it. I think we need a secondary source, because although you seem to know more about the history than I do, there are people out there that know more than both of us.
The other thing I want to do is restore some material that was stable for two years, but has disappeared without ever being discussed to consensus. I'll start with the table of ethnographies that a lot of editors have wanted to see documented somewhere at Wiki, and was recently decided to be merged back into this article.
That list of societies is good hard evidence on the topic. Many people disapprove of those societies and patriarchy, we must write that into the article, however, anything neutral like a list of just which societies are held to be patriarchal (and therefore "unjust" if you like) is important for setting the scope of the article, and for documenting reliable sources.
Anyway, the main thing is building on the work you've already done: adding and refining. The more sources we have backing your work, the more stable it is and sure to endure. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as you are going back to the Stoics, why not go back further? Hesiod's Works and Days and also his Ages of Man can be shown to represent Indo-European myths. I have a good source for this. The outlook is typical. It is known that this culture was super-imposed on non-Indo European people with different customs. As long as your history is prefaced by "according to" and not presented like the opinion of Wikipedia, or as the established view, it can all fit with the form of the existing article.

The table of Ethnographies, as everything else, must be prefaced, explaining its relevance to the rest of the material. The section on Anthropology as well as the biology section already state that the practice of deriving social theory from the natural sciences has been discredited, so if you are suggesting that it represents a "proof" that patriarchy is good it is: 1. A dead end; 2. An attempt to support a particular theory and not the function of an encyclopedia; 3. going to put us right back where we started. These existing arguments are sourced to studies that can be included in more detail. I only referenced them for the sake of space.

Any changes must be discussed. Really discussed. It seems like your suggestions fit in the Alleged benefits of Patriarchy section. If you want to work on a suggestion for that section it needs to be handled in a way that makes the theory clear to the reader without trying to argue for its rightness. And you need to say this is the argument of a certain scholar or a certain school of thought. Also be prepared for additional material to illustrate the opposing views. This is only the structure of the whole article. Please do not include the entire table without comment, like you did before. Summarize it, and conclusions must be sourced to someone besides you.

On Goldberg, I have two reviews from American Anthropologist that make me question him and anyone who "prooved" his theory. I'm still concerned about the way this will go, although the discussion part is a positive change.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a nice positive interaction, thanks Hammy.
Actually, one of the things I think your history could do with, is a few more "according to"s.
For example, you have:
"In this matter, [Aristotle] followed in the tradition of Socrates who thought being born a woman was divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal." Referenced to http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis
Now, I was a little confused, because "Mysterious Topics Atlantis" doesn't sound like a reliable source, but when I went there, I found a page from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato's Timaeus. I presume, then you mean to cite Jowett's translation of Plato:
"For our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men".
I would cite this differently.
"ὡς γάρ ποτε ἐξ ἀνδρῶν γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία γενήσοιντο͵ ἠπίσταντο οἱ συνιστάντες ἡμᾶς" Plato, Timaeus 76e. "For our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men". Translated by Benjamin Jowett 1871.
Now, although I personally don't object to original research from primary sources, because that's my day job, it's not the normal thing for us to do here at Wikipedia. It's so very hard to be original, though, that it's usually not too much of a problem when people try it here, because we can often find secondary sources that do say exactly what we want them to say.
In this case, though, I think that will be a little more difficult, since Timaeus is actually the speaker, and he's replying to Socrates in Plato's dialogue. So if we want to work from the source, we need to change your sentence a little, unless you feel that Socrates words at 29d
Ἄριστα͵ ὦ Τίμαιε͵ παντάπασί τε ὡς κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον· τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιον θαυμασίως ἀπεδεξάμεθά σου͵ τὸν δὲ δὴ νόμον ἡμῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε.
entitle us to believe Socrates acquiesced in advance to Timaeus' assertions. That's an interesting reading, and not without merit, but the question must be, do other people think this?
Perhaps you wouldn't mind changing "Socrates" to "Timaeus" or, perhaps better, "Plato". However, I'm still not sure that's enough. As I understand Plato here in Timaeus, he is suggesting that men were formed first, then both women and animals out of men. He is not saying here that there is any punishment, and he is certainly not saying women are half-man, half-beast. In my opinion he is saying something much worse: he is saying ἐξ ἀνδρῶν γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία γενήσοιντο. Would you agree? γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία! Women and the other animals! Not half-man but fully beast!
As many moderns have it, misogyny in philosophy has deep roots. But that brings up another point: we are discussing misogyny here, not patriarchy. Is your argument that Aristotle based his theory of politics on a misogynistic Greek creation myth? That's a very plausible thesis, though I can also imagine other points of view. Aristotle saw the state arising from the family, but did he explain where he thought the family came from?
This is where I think we need some secondary sources. If they all agree, then we can say "Aristotle believed ...", if they disagree, then we can say, "Classicist Professor Jane Doe and many others think Aristotle believed ...", but "Professor Janet Citzen thinks ...".
I'd love to know more about which secondary sources you're using as you deal with this top quality primary source material. Whose description of Indo-European influence on pre-classical European culture are you following? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of this is source stuff is difficult and this material does not have so little relevance. It was Plato's Timaeus for the consort star bit.(Timaeus 41E-42D) The Internet cite was just a convenient way to let readers see it for themselves. I have a better source and will change it. The Indo-European influence is in a book called, "God and the Land: the metaphysics of farming in Hesiod and Vergil." (author's spelling) by Nelson. It has been a while since these sources were used, so I will look at them again. But most of them were in several sources. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm printing your message. I get into trouble firing off answers. I see you are being thoughtful about this. I'll get back to you. I changed the sources. Think I got them all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I don't read Greek. Thanks for assuming I do though. I see your point about the half animal idea that is attributed to Socrates. The secondary source was "What Paul really said about women," by John Temple Bristow. He said it exactly as I wrote it, but I would have to be looking at a copy of the Timaeus to talk about this at all. I will try to get one. I have put my original source on the article and left the Internet reference too, but that can still be changed to the Benjamin Jowett translation, if it seems important.
Your question about whether we are talking about patriarchy or misogyny is important. It might be related to the question of whether we are talking about political institutions or the marriage relationship. I think I see where you are going--that patriarchy doesn't imply mysogyny. This kind of argument is missing in the article so far. It might fit in the Benefits section, but that heading could be worded better. The Benefits of patriarchy is an argument in itself. --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't use Bristow, I used his source from his notes.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry--I realize the misogyny or patriarchy comment needs a lot more thought than I've given it, and that it wasn't a question. The history section traces an ethos that has influenced society at all levels. It also indicates that misogyny has been recognized and fought for hundreds of years. This defining of roles and assigning corresponding limits and values seems to have been an important tool in the rationale for hierarchical organizations and for a society consisting of the rulers and the ruled. The article wasn't meant to defame or to assume the worst of men or deny the good intentions of husbands and I don't think it gives that impression. On a political and economic level, patriarchy affects everyone. I've never had to say what I think the article is saying before. I hope this explains the mysogyny/patriarchy connection.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One final word on the sources. I think I've read somewhere that Socrates did not write. Plato wrote his teachings, as well as the final words he spoke while awaiting execution. (This was in the Phaedo.) De Santillana and von Dechend, when speaking of Socrate's ideas often say something like, "What Socrates (or Plato) meant..." I will still get the actual copy myself and see what I can find out.
On the choice of translation, the Bristow source was listed, but the Socrates quote on the creation of souls (in de Santillana and von Dechend) gives only the numbers as they appear in the Timaeus. So I wonder if more information is really needed? --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to cite them as the source. The translation is obviously theirs. I'll give a page number.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quality responses, thanks, Hammy. I'll have a closer look at your modifications and probably sign off that I agree with you. Quality comments about bigger picture issues re misogyny v. patriarchy also. We've got plenty of work to do, but I think we've got the same basic ideas about the sort of coverage this article needs to end up with. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I re-read your proposal about a history of advocacy for patriarchy, and also read my answer. I see that I did sound defensive about your first proposal. It had mostly to do with that table, but I was not encouraging and I apologize.

I think a section of the article does need to spell out the main points of advocacy for patriarchy. It won't convince everyone any more than the other sections convince everyone, but it shouldn't have to. It is better if you don't try. It would only need to be a clear explanation from an accepted source. The article would be more rounded if you would be willing to add this other voice. In your last message I picked up on a possible argument concerning whether patriarchy implies misogyny, and a few related questions, but you would know the main points better, yourself. Can't it be approached in a different way? You don't need proof of a view even if the table were capable of proof. Just a reasoned argument from a good source. --Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women and children first (saying) is the classic statement of advocacy for patriarchy as non-misogynistic. Versions of that concept are available from primary sources going back to the start of history. Secondary sources dealing with the primary sources are also available. I think that's all we really need regarding a case "for" patriarchy. Perhaps someone will come along and want more, but that person will not be me. I do think it is relevant that Christian theology has God the Father as patriarch over God the Son, both before creation and after the end of the world, so in Christian theology (and several other religions) patriarchy is seen as eternal (rather than merely inevitable, as Goldberg put it). Those religious views are, imo, less significant than the "women and children first" ethic, which is far more widespread. But the value of documenting religious views is that feminist criticism rightly identifies that patriarchy is deeply ingrained in human societies, often via religious world-views.
Please let me stress that this article can neither be a coatrack for polemic against patriarchy, nor for advocacy. There is so much material simply from anthropology and biology alone (which don't take sides), that a substantial neutral article can be produced without even looking at ideologies. What we will face, however, is a large number of readers who are interested in the article taking sides. We've got to point them to WP:NPOV: "sorry, Wiki is neither for nor against patriarchy; are there sources for either POV you think we've not accounted for?"
Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will print this and think it over more carefully, but I am encouraged by this response. It may not be necessary, but I wanted to mention the "case for patriarchy" comment. You did say you are aware we should not take sides, but it is easy to forget that we are not making a "case." We are summarizing the case that key theorists have made. I want to point out that the other sections could be much longer and be made to stress points of view more, but they were given as little space as possible because that was not my purpose, and also since the article was so long.
On the anthropological and biological material, the article has said that its connection to social theory has been called into question. There is additional material that can be used here. The idea that physical sciences don't take sides can, in itself, be disputed using sources I am already aware of. I really had in mind concise statements of what I call the ideal of patriarchy, the women and children first part that you mentioned, and maybe some arguments from the religious sources you are talking about, but without trying to be definitive. It would be nice to see an actual proposal and its sources. --Hammy64000 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:UNDUE, this article should probably expand discussion of feminist criticism before elaborating on the "benefits" of patriarchy. There are entire bookstores devoted to criticism of patriarchy, i.e. feminism, so we have a lot of ground to cover there. Kaldari (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right and I have no problem with that. Thank you for pointing out that the feminist material has not even been tapped. I am very happy not to be left alone here in staying true to all viewpoints. Under pressure, I begin to think that the article "needs" the case for patriarchy, when the opposite case has not even been made. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I would object to the "Benefits of patriarchy" heading. As I said before it is an argument all by itself. I agree that the feminist part is missing and would have to be included to include the patriarchal argument. In fact, a contributor enquired about the absence of a feminist argument not long ago, but I haven't heard from him again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, I tried to match patriarchal arguments and episodes with the corresponding push-back from feminism and from other viewpoints. But adding arguments of either feminism or patriarchy POV would definitely upset any balance that may be there now and would lead to inclusion of the opposing view. --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari. It's standard practice to place arguments for the affirmative before criticisms. Additionally, since 5,000 years of recorded history provide literature to review, I think Hammy's approach is more usual and provides more WP:DUE weighting. Finally, as Carol pointed out long ago, the science comes first. Non-ideological material is more stable and less controversial. Of course, when I started work here, I ignored all those things and wrote up feminist criticisms first, because they're the easiest to source. It's probably worth pulling up Carol's proposed structure again. No need to re-invent the wheel, wouldn't you say? Or have you changed your mind? Alastair Haines (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Until someone proposes some new material, I'm not going to worry about this at all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Originally, I thought that if the tone and content of the addition was a good balance for the rest of the article, maybe no one would want to add anything, but I can't speak for everyone. I am going to try to stay out of this part as much as possible.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-merge of Universality of patriarchy

Washing my hands

Alistair, I want you to know that you no longer have the benefit of the doubt with me. As of this addition, with which you have shown some kind of personality trait that I don't even recognize--that I've never seen before--and with which you have shown complete disregard of my efforts to reach out to you, I no longer recognize you as a friend or as a worthwhile focus of my attention.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not really an addition, Hammy. All I'm doing is restoring information others had requested live somewhere in article space, and a different group of others wanted merged into the current article.
You're welcome to whatever opinion of me you want to have, however, I never give up on anyone. I will always assume good faith and try to settle any differences of opinion we may have.
By the way, this page is supposed to address article content, not editor relationships. Please feel free to use my user talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say in your sources--
(Brown (1991). 42.^ Goldberg (1973). 43.^ Pinker (2002). 44.^ bell hooks and others (1993): 34. 45.^ "A lot of women who go for the notion of equal rights cannot go for the notion of opposing patriarchy, because that means a fundamental opposition to the culture as a whole. That's more scary to people." bell hooks and others (1993): 34.)

These references are not complete. Book title, publisher and absence of propaganda would be appreciated, even expected. Bell hooks and others? --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manus, you are already aware of the problems with these sources. Provide complete sources and a way to check the obscure ones before you replace this POV material.--Hammy64000 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content and balance discussion

I am sorry Hammy I am not going to let you use Alastairs exit as an exuse to completely remove his material. This is not the way articles are written in wikipedia. You will have to establish a consensus to remove sourced material like this. I also don't appreciate your telling me to "stay out of this" - you were complaining that Alastair owned the article and now you seem to believe you have exclusive rights to do the spring cleaning. That is not going to happen. We are going to make this article neutral and prsent both the universalist and relativist viewponts in an unbiased way. That is not best done byt removeing 35k of text without consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, Manus, I forgot you were an impartial participant. I thought you favored this POV, and that was the reason you replaced it. I won't delete it again, but I didn't use his exit as an excuse. This material is not new to me. I researched it before and was aware of the problems with it--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as consensus goes, I have been on my own here, except for the times Alastair has appeared to delete or add material. I'm willing and able to challenge each part of the new addition, but I may not get any discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I'm willing to leave the article to others. I did think the arbcom was decided already, or I would not have deleted it at all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that sounds good. I don't think you should leave the article, but I would appreciate if we could work together towards making it include all POVs in a balanced fashion. I am aware of the problems with using Goldberg uncritically - and those problems will have to be included. There are some bold statements about the universality of Patriarchy that I would very much like to see sourced or which will otherwise have to go. I will try to dig up sources and then see how best to proceed from there. Please go ahead and put in citation needed tags wherever there are dubious statements. We can also put up a POV warning tag to alert readers that the article may currently not be neutral.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This book[5] seems like an excellent resource for a nuanced view of the Universals debate.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never had a problem with other POV's--I hoped I could head this particular addition off and was willing to add something from Alistair--but the table is long and highly questionable. I will list the problems in detail. Even the paragraphs don't have complete sources. I also have no problem in working with you on this. I don't know if you were aware of the article before. Other POV's had been held off for quite some time. I consider my contributions to begin around Aug. 13, 2009 with the History section. I discussed everything I added. I wasn't the only one aware of the article's difficult history. Also, any patriarchy additions are going to invite feminism additions--not from me, but from other interested parties. It is inevitable. Here is a comment I received on my talk page.

"Wow. Thanks for cleaning up the patriarchy article. I had tried to implement revisions back when Alastair was dominating it, but I gave up. Nice to see it so... balaced. Maybe my faith in Wikipedia has been restored. Neuromusic (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)"--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "balanced fashion" comment worries me a little. I'm not afraid of ideas, even POV in an informational format. I won't stick around for a fight though. --Hammy64000 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked your book link. I'll get a copy and look it over. I might be wrong, but in looking at the table of contents, it seems the "Universals" argument is based on biological evolution. The derivation of social theory from biology has been dealt with, briefly, in the article. I'm not saying it can't be included, but it shouldn't be presented as a definitive approach. If you want more of this in the article, it would probably go in the "Biology vs. social construct" section.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If there is anything I can do to reassure you about my approach, sources, etc., please tell me--of course you can do your own fact checking, etc. If you want to work on this article, this would be a first step, and from there, any objections would move the article forward from where it is now.
There is more than one problem with the way this new ethnology stuff is presented. First, my impression is that evidence is given to validate patriarchy using the argument that a number of societies were patriarchal. If they are, therefore, that is the way we should be.
On the Bamenda study, I read it over briefly. This study was requested by "Cameroons Development Corporation, and shortly after a despatch was addressed by the Governor of Nigeria to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he drew attention to conditions in the Bamenda division of the Cameroons under British mandate, where, despite considerable natural resources, there was underpopulation, and social obstacles to opportunities for economic development and educational advance were apparent. Among factors thought to be in part responsible for the situation were a very high infant mortality rate to which social factors might be contributing, and a low status of women." First of all, this was a theory, which required a study. But the underpopulation and social obstacles--the facts needing explanation--do not indicate a successful system that inspires emulation. The study does call this society patrilineal, however.
But more relevant to its use in this article are the anthropologist's comments: "In the first place, this handling of data yields a series of statements on the role of women in particular segments of tribal life. Generalizations at this level are valid, significant, and of value to those concerned with the problem of raising the status of women and promoting their welfare. An attempt to go beyond this and, by a species of anthropological or moral arithmetic, to decide whether the position of women in general is high or low, or good or bad is, in my opinion, likely to prove profitless. I have made this point with almost monotonous regularity in all my reports." I haven't read the entire thing, which I should do to make a good argument, but the link is here. [6]--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that in order to get an objective perspective I think we should start by looking at some anthropology textbooks and see how they describe the debate. I think it is significant to mention that Male dominance is one of Browns Universals and that Goldberg has attempted to refute most of the supposed exceptions. But I think we should emulate a textbook (or maybe a couple) when we try to decide how much weight the universality pov should be given. In all cases the large "data" section was clearly inadmissible synthesis trying to prove a point by synthesising a wide variety of primary sources - basically it looked like the ground research for a scholarly article synthesising the status of the hypothesis of the universality of patriarchy.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind looking at textbooks, etc. My objections to this particular information are not based on universality arguments though, but I'm fine with leaving it for now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you go a ahead and boldly change what you would like to see differently then we can see if I have any suggestions for improvements. Heres a textbook example [7]. I am going to look at it and some other textbooks when I get time to swing by the library.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to mention that I know from my own university experience that there is plenty of POV there. Any text book is written and used by choice. I became quite familiar with the tendency in Cultural anthropology, to echo sociobiology. The prof. did not explain objections to his approach or provide perspective. I only learned years later that his texts, etc. fit sociobiology and that sociobiology attempted to analyze human behavior using biology. Thanks for your offer that I change things. I'm in no hurry. We can address things one at a time. I have some other things to do right now, but I'm glad you are interested in improving this article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mean to suggest we can't use textbooks. I'm just saying I don't know of anything that should be treated as a final authority. I'll try to stay open on this anyway.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, final authority never - a guideline. And not one textbook we'd need several.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that should work. I agree with that completely.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for table

The extremely lengthy "Sources for table" section should be removed. Besides the fact that it has already been removed from this article previously by consensus, it violates WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO, and even MOS:FLAG. Some of the lengthier quotations may also be copyright violations. The correct way to cite sources is to use reference tags, not to quote every source within the article itself. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I'd removed it already. This is clearly Synthesis - if it weren't then it would be possible and preferable to quote a summary of the findings instad of all the individual pieces of data.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV and OR issues

As discussed above (and at the original AfD) there are several POV and Original Research issues with the Universality of patriarchy content. Hopefully some of it can be edited to conform with those policies, although some of it may need to be deleted. To start with, I have deleted two unreferenced sentences from the "Public responsibilities" section[8] that seem to have been included for no other reason than to imply that men are inherently superior to women. I also think that the repeated use of the term "responsibilities" rather than "roles" (or in some cases "authority") is POV, as it seems to be suggesting that men are expected to wield power over women as the natural order of things. Of course this POV is heavily challenged by feminism and even mainsteam Western society. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I think the heading, "Universality of patriarchy" is POV, and is based on the questionable anthropological material that was deleted. It has no support in the article and shouldn't be used in this way, since it implies a consensus that doesn't exist. Next, I think you could include these paragraphs as an illustration of this type of argument, but you would need to check the sources to make sure the arguments can really be attributed to these people. However, the sources are incomplete. There is only one Goldberg book, but does anyone know the other books in the references? If these problems can be solved, I can use at least 3 sources that challenge the universality claim and challenge the way the evidence is used to support it. Both views should be stated as information about the debate and not as the final conclusion. In that event, it would only be necessary for the arguments to be put in context, with complete sources. In the process, you could use the wording found in the sources and the questionable wording you mentioned could either be attributed to a source or deleted.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know the Brown book and that seems to be a more credible resource than Goldberg. I think maybe a better title would be "Patriarchy as a human universal" because Browns universals are fairly widely accepted. I think we would do good to show however that 1. male dominance of the political and public sphere is by the most widespread pattern in the worlds cultures. 2. that there are possible exceptions to this pattern e.g. in egalitarian cultures. 3. that the differences in the degree and types of male dominance found in the worlds societies is very large. 4. that there are different theories about why male dominance is the most common system some biological (mention Goldberg) and some cultural - and that generally simplistic reductionist causality to a single factor (e.g. testosterone) is not a favoured explanation of this phenomenon. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ordered Pinker's book from my library. I guess Brown's Human univesrsals is published there. I have a few questions about your proposals, but maybe it would be better to see a few possible paragraphs for the article so we can talk more specifically. I need to look at the book to really talk about this, but at this point I would be more comfortable with "The human universals debate" for a heading, or something like it. Maybe this is where you were going anyway, but "Patriarchy as a human universal" could be understood in various ways. The article has mentioned your first two points but these could be expanded. The last paragraph of the biology vs. social construct section says something about number 1, and the history section mentions that Aristotle's patriarchal views were not shared by all the surrounding cultures. This could be expanded, or you could handle it as you have suggested. Numbers 3 and 4 haven't been dealt with yet, and this could be a useful addition to the article. Number 3 brings up the shortcomings with the modern definition of patriarchy, which I haven't found a way to address. On number 4, a summary of the types of analysis and the schools of thought would be good. Any other comments?--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deja vu. I feel like this entire discussion has happened about 3 times now. Anyway, I added a paragraph to the Universality section to begin to balance it out. The section also needs a paragraph about egalitarianism in modern Western culture and the influence of feminist ideas. Right now it makes it sound like every woman in the world is barefoot and pregnant. I also agree that the main header needs to be changed. I wouldn't mind going with Maunus's suggestion, so long as it is explained at the beginning that it is a debatable theory (although generally accepted I presume). Kaldari (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get the deja vu comment, what is it that you feel you've been over so many times? Where would you prefer to start the discussion?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few years ago Alastair filled this article with pages of content devoted to the Universality of patriarchy (which seems to be his pet topic). Since people kept deleting and/or editing it down, he moved most of it to separate subarticles: Universality of patriarchy, Patriarchy (anthropolgy), List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal. Eventually these were all nominated for deletion, and the outcome of the AfD for Universality of patriarchy was to merge it back into patriarchy. It was merged in June 2009 and the same arguments about OR and POV that had happened originally were rehashed. Some of it was rewritten and refactored, but eventually most of it was just deleted since no one wanted to rewrite it all from scratch. Now Alastair has re-merged the original version of all of that content back into the article and we're having the same debates again. I'm sure that a year from now, Alastair will simply remerge his version of the content again and whoever's here will go through the same process again. Oh well. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point about deja vu, but Maunus hasn't been here and some of this probably can't be avoided. Thanks for the paragraph--I'm still hoping some of the unsourced material can be rounded out so we know what we are trying to address. It is impossible to present a balanced picture when you don't know if the current material will stay in the article. I am willing to put proposals on the discussion page first, but if I'm outvoted, then I'll go with the majority. It does seem safer to discuss it first since we obviously have 3 separate approaches here--or even give a preview and see if anyone objects--but maybe that's not how its done? I'll go along with the section heading at this point too, since I haven't seen how the argument will be presented and since everyone seems okay with it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you already know the unsourced stuff is in a certain book, tell me and I'll complete the references. I also ordered Bell Hooks' books, but of course I don't know for sure which ones were meant. I'm interested in her view because she is a "feminist thinker" and yet was used here to justify male rule. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should say that anything that is presented as one argument or view, and sourced shouldn't be a problem. I'm probably more worried than I need to be because of past history.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added information from an anthropology text--these sections still need work.--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the title is POV. Also, I do not think it is true that sociobiology or evolutionary psychology stem from Darwin. They really stem from genetics (which developed after Darwin) and the idea, popularized by Dawkins, of the selfish gene. Wilson's sociobiology applies so social animals but not human beings. Evolutionary psychologists' claims about human gender relations are controversial at best. Now, perhaps there is a place for theme here, but I think they can fit easily in the section on nature versus nurture, I do not think they merit their own discussion. Finally, the section really needs tightening up. I am tempted to do it myself but since the last time I worked on this article this section did not even exist, I will defer to others who have been working on it. But here is my suggestion: delete any general explanation of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. It just doesn't belong in this article. All that is important is that evolutionary psychologists have made some claims, and other social scientists and historians have made contesting claims.
Most anthropologists to my knowledge would say that patriarchy is not universal; that the concept itself (which comes from myth, not science) may or may not apply to some societies (i.e. gender politics is too complicated to be reduced to what you may think are the only three categories, male dominance, female dominance or equality. Logic, alas, seldom works in empirical studies and most ethnographers would say gender politics is more complicated, with individual men and individual women sometimes exercising more power, sometimes less powerm, and often different kinds of power that are not easily measured or compared. I think most anthropologists would say that what we call patriarchy first clearly appears in agricultural societies or pastoral societies where men own the principal means of production. But there is Diaz's ethnography of Mexican society, published I think in 1966 or something, arguing that in an explicitly macho society women exercised considerable "behind the scenes" power and really, Mexico could not be called patriarchal. Michele Barrett, in Women's Oppression Today - like Yolanda and Robert F. Murphy in Women of the Forest - argue that one must distinguish between gender ideologies and actual geneder relations (i.e. that men and women may agree that men rule, but empirical observation of society reveal that women exercise great, sometimes decisive, power). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this comment. I agree with you, although I've been trying to work with this new stuff only because the argument keeps coming up. I've added things previously that I thought would take care of this kind of thing and yet here it is again, so I don't have much faith in just adding on more arguments. I agree that much of the new section should go. It isn't sourced and therefore impossible to put in perspective.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The research I've done on this new material leads to the idea that the exceptions to partriarchal societies are ignored by sociobiology, although some exceptions would be an interesting addition. Sociobiology's aims have more to do with social and political policy, which explains why this just won't go away. Also, these things may not be from Darwin directly, but the sources I have argue for a relationship. You could add another view.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first paragraph linking sociobiology to Darwin is from a recent anthropology text book.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The political agenda

Here is where this is taking me so far...I would like comments, although your idea of just adding to the biology section is fine with me. Don't think of this as an addition to the article--just as an explanation of what we seem to be dealing with here.

Since 1974, critics have questioned Goldberg’s methods and suggested exceptions to his universal patriarchal scenario, although under his “ground rules” exceptions are irrelevant. Goldberg’s peers noted that he included few “comparable models of genetic and social change”…making theoretical argument difficult. [1] On the publication of E. O. Wilson’s book, scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould objected that many of Wilson’s claims had been made repeatedly, and thoroughly refuted, referring to the works of Herbert Spencer, Konrad Lorenz, and Robert Ardry. Because these refutations had so little effect on the subsequent claims of sociobiologists, Gould and others began to accuse them of serving a social and political agenda. [2] In fact, after the publication of Wilson’s book, Business Week published an article entitled "A Genetic defense of the free market," (April 10, 1978), while Newsweek and Time both ran articles on sociobiology, commenting on the inevitability of male dominance. [3]

The debate was even older than Gould implied. According to archaeologist V. Gordon Childe, it began in the eighteenth century, when ethnographers proposed a hierarchic order for societies modeled on the order established by Linnaeus and Bouffon for Natural History. Subsequently, Lamarck theorized that such hierarchies were the result of evolution. Childe said "(Lamarck’s) theory was in effect from the first a rationalist protest against theological dogmas of supernatural intervention." Of course the protest only became influential after Darwin and Wallace "propounded" a mechanism for natural selection.

Anton Pannekock provides a more disturbing insight from the Marxist point of view. He said that Darwinism was a tool of the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, the nobility, clergy and feudal lords. Of course the bourgeoisie were not the exploited class. The bourgeoisie, or the leaders of industry, wanted to rule. [4] While it is true that John Locke, for example, argued against Filmer’s divine kingship, his argument was not really a defense of the rights of women. Instead, Locke claimed that women knowingly and voluntarily gave up their rights through the marriage contract. In Locke’s scheme, married women were to have no property rights. This would ensure their cooperation and also provide surety for inheritance of property, through the father. (Cite Sydie or Locke) Childe’s archaeological description of the family is relevant here. There is a difference between the natural family consisting of parents and children, a biological necessity, and the family as an institution. The institutional family is a unit of co-operation, and a vehicle for the transmission of male property and status. When the state becomes the more dominant influence, the natural family, or the clan, degenerates.

Marx published his Materialist Conception of History in 1859; the year Darwin published the Origin of Species. He formed his theory, in part, from his knowledge of the history of civilized societies, but for his ethnographies of primitive people he relied on Lewis Henry Morgan. Morgan’s, method was flawed, although he had made some improvements on the methods of the English ethnographers. His conclusions, however, illustrated Marx’s Materialist interpretation of history.

For the ultimate aims of Marxism we have the report of Peter Kropotkin. Eventually, two factions developed in the International Workingmen’s Association. The Latin countries remained federalist, but after the War of 1870 parliamentary rule had been introduced in "united Germany" and the Germans made an effort to modify the aims and methods of the whole socialist movement, resulting in the party of the Social Democrats. The governing body was a general council residing at London, with Engels and Marx as its leading spirits. The party’s new focus was the conquest of power within the existing states. The Social Democrats worked within the political process for "centralization as against federalism," and in economics for the state management of railways and the state monopoly of banking and of the sale of spirits. The next step would be the state management of the land and of the leading industries and "even of the consumption of riches." For Kropotkin the determination to control industry represented state socialism, or rather, state capitalism. "It was the necessary conflict between the principles of federalism and those of centralization, the free commune and the state’s paternal rule, the free action of the masses of the people and the betterment of existing capitalist conditions through legislation--a conflict between the Latin spirit and the German Geist, which…claimed supremacy in science, politics, philosophy, and in socialism too, representing its own conception of socialism as 'scientific,' while all other interpretations it described as 'utopian.'" [5]

Sociobiologist Steven Pinker’s book, The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature,” published in 2002, continued the debate between sociobiology and its critics. [6]Hammy64000 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This suddenly seems heavy on Marxism, but it obviously applies to both political extremes. Anyway, I'm sure the sociobiology will show up again and I think this might explain it.Hammy64000 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To begin with, I propose deleting the 4th paragraph under "Patriarchy as a human universal." I have two books from Bell Hooks and it is clear from the first page that she endeavored to reconcile men and women. The way Hooks and Watkins are used in the article is dishonest because they did not say that the world should be, or that it was currently universally patriarchal. Hooks said patriarchal systems make it impossible for men to love and be loved and she argues men's patriarchal roles are on the decline. You could discuss this in the article, but it is not even stated in an honest way here and further treatment would be a digression.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose deletion of the "Features of patriarchy" section. They have no sources. Also, they are old arguments that have been dealt with by the scientific community. Goldberg claimed feelings were in favor of patriarchy and this was refuted by Leacock, who said that the ethnographic material did not sufficiently cover feelings of either men or women. The 2nd paragraph says that exceptions prove the rule (supposedly of universal patriarchy). This has been termed by Gould and others, the preference of the sociobiologist making the claim. As I said they set up the argument so that they can ignore evidence that does not support their claims. The sentence that the phenomenon of patriarchy is not evolutionary but preferential is the often remarked tendency of the sociobiologist to deny biological determinism--a major criticism of this field of study. But the next sentence says there is an underlying biological and evolutionary explanation regarding preference. Previous criticism (for 40 years) has pointed out that preference is not supported by ethnographies. This is the kind of thing that needs to be said if these statements remain in the article, but since they are not even sourced do we really want to go over this again? Please discuss this, as well as the suggestion that this new material should be summarized and put in the biology vs. social construct section. If there are objections to this last part, discuss the change of heading to something like "Patiarchy as a human universal, the continuing debate," or suggest something else.Hammy64000 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think all of this stuff is irrelevant to the article. Frankly this sounds like six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I can start with patriary and take it almost anywhere. Pannekock's critique of Darwin is just irrelevant here. Gould and Childe all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. This article needs focus and the focus should be on patriarchy. There have been arguments about patriarghy in the evolution of human society, and key participants in this discussion are lewis Henry Morgan, Frederich Engels, Eleanor Leacock, and evolutionary biologists. The article should give basic coverage to each plus their critics, but we must avoid SYNTH; the material above is just one big NOR violation. What is at issue here is not ANY criticism of Darwin or even sociobiology but of specific theories about patriarchy period. Any critique that is not explicitly of a theory of patriarchy does not belong in the article. And we ought to be working on a second strand, which is simply empirical - accounts of the forms patriarchy takes and how widley distributed, I would start with HRAF and Ember's stuff. Douglas White, a Wikipedian, has some knowledge of these. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think it is irrelevant. I think it is not. I plan to rewrite and probably will expand the anthropological material, since that seems to be your interest here, but it seems you may not be aware of the POV etc. material that was recently removed from the sociobiolical arguments in this new section--or of the history of comments of the same sort. My explanation for this reality is the most relevant thing I can think of in explaining the history of this article, although I've already said I don't plan to put this particular comment in the article. You innocently mention the anthropological material, as though you think this years-long discussion was all about a sane representation of the evidence. It was not. I liked your anthropological exceptions to patriarchy mostly because you seem so relatively reasonable, all things considered. On your comments about the irrelevance of Darwin, you are just wrong--sorry.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Cute! I would just like to be clear on this though--I don't equate cute with eloquent and I intend to point out the difference whenever necessary.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Darwin published his views on patriary in a reliable source, and these views turn out to be significantin discussions of patriarchyl, I am all for including him. You seem to miss my point entirely. My point has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is "important," it has to do with complying with our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk


  1. ^ Review of The inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 76. No. 2, June, 1974
  2. ^ "[1]", Against sociobiology
  3. ^ "[2]", The politics of sociobiology
  4. ^ "[3]", Marxism and Darwinism
  5. ^ Peter Kropotkin, Memoirs of a revolutionist, Horizon Press, 1968
  6. ^ "[4]",nymag.com book reviews


Apparently I really don't get your point. My points about Darwin are sourced. It may not matter--none of this really depends on him. I tightened up the new material by putting it in the biology vs. social construct section. I saved any deleted material that hasn't been discussed yet, although no one seemed too interested in it one way or the other. This still needs work, and there is room for more anthropology material in the anthropology section.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to make sense because sociobiology, although it involves anthropology, is not in the same category. It is about biology or natural causes of patriarchy, although some might argue this point.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"none of this really depends on him" - this is my point. Have you read our WP:NOR policy? Do you understand what we mean by "synth?"

Where have I ever accused you of not providing sources? Have I ever refered to our V or RS policies in relation to my criticism? No. Please do not respond to a criticism I have never made. I'd rather you respond to what I actually wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't this conversation over? I have no fight with you, that I'm aware of.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first mention of Darwin in the biology section wasn't even written by me. He is part of this because that is where the theories started.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are objecting to the mention of Darwin in the discussion--the part you said was 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon--that was not intended for the article. Are you objecting to the discussion?Hammy64000 (talk)

I am objecting to anything that violates NPOV or NOR. Did I not explain that above? I just made some cuts of the material that violated policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Warning to Slrubenstein--This warning was given much earlier, but not signed at the time.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hammy64000, you have gone against the consensus version of this article by adding a huge amount of material that violates NPOV, NOR, or is written in a personal-essay style. If you wish to add controversial material i suggest you present it here point by point, for discussion, until some consensus is reached. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slrubenstein, you are wrong. Since this has been accepted without complaint for months, I suggest you should be the one to discuss your issues. You have only been insulting so far. I checked your articles that you claim you are proud of on your talk page. They have warning flags and no sources. Is that how you think this one should look?Hammy64000 (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And your railing about my editing shouldn't be defined as concensus.Hammy64000 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slrubensein, you are involved in an edit war. This is a warning.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have warned you against editing against consensus. Please discuss your suggestions on the talk page versus BRD. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not remove the flags again, Slrubenstein. And stop pretending--anyone who thinks can see what you are doing.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm driving across the country right now, so I don't have time to address the content issues, however it looks like this discussion is going downhill fast. I would encourage both of you to take a breather and concentrate on discussing the dispute rather than edit warring on the article. The are several dispute resolution channels which can also be utilized if discussion here has reached an impass. Good luck and keep cool. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

revisions, 2.0

I am writing in the hopes of starting a productive discussion about how to fix the article. On May 18 I expressed concerns about SYNTH. Since then i have repeated my concerns about SYNTH, NOR in general, and NPOV. Much of the article also reads like a personal essay.

On May 18 Hammy wrote, "Apparently I really don't get your point."

I tried, again, to explain my point and Hammy resplied, "Wasn't this conversation over?"

I am trying to assume good faith, but I do not understand how a conversation can be "over" when my interlocutor says he does not understand my point. This makes me wonder if we also have OWN problems here.

My criticisms were of content in the article, not of any individual and I hope no one takes my points personally. I am objecting solely to content. I do not know who originally wrote the content I deleted, nor do I care; it does not matter. I never made th author of the content an issue. My only concern is to remove any content that is unrelated to the article or is written in essay style, or for some other reason violates NOR. The only reason I am now addressing Hammy is that Hammy is the only one who has expressed objections to my NOR concerns and who has reverted my edits.

Yet, I got the idea that Hammy also had some problems with the contents of the article. There were certain tags in the article indicated problems.

My intention was solely to remove content that was inappropriate for the article or that in more specific ways violated our NPOV or NOR policies.

It is not clear to me whether Hammy objects to my having removed this problematic material, or my having removed the templates alerting people to the fact tha the material is problematic.

I thought that my edits helped address those problems, but if Hammy hinks they still exist and we have to keep the templates I will be careful not to remove them. To be clear: my only agenda is to ensure that the article not violate NOR, NPOV, or ESSAY.

Hammy values consensus. So I would like to propose that we forget about that "wasn't this conversation over" remark and try to use this page actually to communicate, and discuss future edits to the article. I really would like o think edtors acting in good faith can work together to improve an article.Slrubenstein | Talk 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion: a complete rewrite

Sorry, but I have had Patriarchy on the backburner for a while engaged in other areas of the pedia. Here I'll just give my view of the status here at patriarchy. There is currently no information or text in this article that I think is sufficiently well written to be untouchable by revisions. I think the best approach to writing this article would be to begin from scratch by constructing a skeleton of the different approaches and subtopics that the article needs to include and then build it up from the ground. The current article is a patchwork of different pieces of information sewn together in a patchwork. There isn't really anything to build on in my opinion. I think that parts of the article definitely violates WP:NOR and SYNTH and ESSAY and should be removed. I think it would be good if Hammy and Slrubenstein each showed here on the talk page how they would structure the article by pinning out the most important aspects and how they fit together. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research

I'd like others to specify what they see as original research. It took me a few seconds to find some, but others may disagree. Basically, sources should mention the subject, so an article which discusses egalitarianism but not patriarchy would normally not be a source here. There seems to be quite a bit of this, using sources to construct an argument is original research.

There's another problem with some of the sources, eg one, The University of New Mexico”, Biosocial/Social role theory, doesn't seem to exist anymore and is in any case just a power point presentation. Another source is a University Wiki. In this article we should be able to find much better sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the reader: These boys blocked me for 24 hours. They are going to change the article to suit themselves. It will be interesting to compare their version with the original. I just want everyone to know that this article is no longer my responsibility. Please see the "Political agenda" section above for an explanation of what is happening here. Hammy64000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were not blocked by any of the administrators who have participated in this debate. You were blocked for editwarring and Slrubenstein was warned as well. I hope you will like the result of the article when we finish.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to Dougweller, I removed all the OR i could find, so I hope it is hard to see any now. I did not review all the sources so I cannot speak to the article's conformity to RS, but thanks for flagging this. I agree with Maunus, that the whole thing can be rewritten. For one thing, I would not rely on websters for the definition of a term that has been widely discussed by social scientists. I also think misxing up philosophers and references to the Bible and social science just muddles everything. Since there is a disambiguation page, this article can stick to patriarchy as a political system.
From what I know of the literature, there are three core areas of contention: (1) how to define "patriarchy," (2) is patriarchy universal or not, and (3) what are the causes of "patriarchy." I think it makes sense opening with a discussion of these three basic questions and if possible a concise summary of the diferent positions on each, and then the article can have three principle sections for each question. We could have an additional section on the history of the term, which could just as well be how speculative philosophers have used the term. Debates over the term involving a wide sample of societies researched scientifically is largely a 20th century phenomenon and I think most of the article should draw on 20th century literature. As to how to define the term, I think the major works are by feminist theorists and by anthropologists, and I am sure some sociologists. I think most historians get their definition from anthropologists. Questions 2 and 3 are largely addressed by anthropologists and sociologists, and some historians (usually feminist social historians. To the extent that evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists have a theory about this we should include it in both sections 2 and 3, and just make it clear that among social scientists these are minority or fringe views. But obviously this article is not th place to decide which view is right (as it tried to do, in the version of a couple of days ago). There are lots of examples to support any given position and we should not get bogged down with any single example (e.g. the hypothetical Biblical patriarchs).
Doug, Maunus, do you want to propose an alternative? Or can either of you improve on or develop my proposal? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

opening a discussion on a rewrite

I just wanted to begin a discussion on how we should rewrite this page. There are a number of gaps and structural issues here that are obvious even at a first glance. I'm breaking this down into two lists a) What should not be here and b) A proposed restructuring.

What should not be here

  1. Etymology - this is wikipedia not wikitionary
  2. Fringe theory
  3. What look like arguments for or against

Basically there is a huge problem visa vie how the information on sociobiology, definitions of the term and concepts from philosophy are presented on this page (problems governed by WP:NPOV / WP:DUE). While there should be a definition of Patriarchy there should not be an etymology (WP:NOT). While we should present multiple POVs neutrally we should not present theories of biology to the exclusion of others (WP:DUE). And again the only philosophies mentioned here are classical - Patriarchy is discussed in many modern philosophies from the enlightenment to feminism. Finally all information must be presented neutrally that means we don't include what looks like arguments for or against any concept (WP:NPOV).

Proposed restructuring (only a partial list and up for discussion)

Proposed structure
  1. A lede with a definition. 4 paragraphs if necessary that set-up and introduce the content of the page as per WP:LEAD. (Should be written last)
  2. Patriarchy, society and culture
    1. Religion (could eventually be spun off)
    2. Law
  3. Views on patriarchy
    1. Anthropology
    2. Biology
      1. Sociobiology
    3. Feminism
      1. Essentialism
    4. Psychology
    5. Sociology
      1. Social constructionism
  4. Patriarchy and philosophy
    1. Classical
    2. Enlightenment
    3. Modern
    4. Contemporary

Please note that all the sections would need to be renamed - I'm just using the formula of "patriarchy and..." for clarity here.

What does anyone else think?--Cailil talk 14:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any takers or contrary views?--Cailil talk 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the things you suggest should be removed. The new structure also sounds good and should help keep things organized. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Steven Goldberg

In my Why Men Rule (the second edition of my The Inevitability of Patriarchy, I examine the original ethnographies of every society claimed by some to be exceptions to the societal universality of patriarchy. In an addendum I present quotations from the ethnographies of all claimed exceptions that make clear that not one of the thousands of societies on which there is any evidence even begins to lack any of three institutions:

1. (Patriarchy) The upper positions of the hierarchies of every society are overwhelmingly filled by men (patriarchy). A Queen Victoria or a Golda Meir is always an exception in her society and is always surrounded by a government of men. (There are a very few, tiny societies with relatively little hierarchy, but in all such societies an informal male dominance plays a role similar to that of patriarchy.)

2. (Male Status Attainment) The highest-status (non-maternal) roles are occupied primarily by males. The high-status roles are high-status not primarily because they are male (ditch-digging is male), but because they have high status. This high status elicits from males, more strongly than from females, the behavior required to attain the status. Which roles are given high status and which behavior is required to attain these roles is, let’s agree for argument’s sake, socially determined. But the greater impulse to do whatever is necessary to attain whichever roles are given high status is a function of male physiology.

3. (Male Dominance) Both men and women feel that the authority resides in the male and that the woman must “get around” the male to attain power. Even when male dominance is absent from law (as in the United States) or formal custom (as in “chivalrous” societies), the expectation is still one of male dominance. This is attested to in the U.S. by, for example, the feminist’s detestation of male dominance and her incorrect attempt to explain it in purely social terms.

Of course there is variation in the manifestation of these institutions; patriarchy in

the United States is different from that in Saudi Arabia. But all societies—whether Christian or pagan, etc.; capitalist or communal, etc.; stone age or modern industrial, etc. exhibit the institutions.

Even if there were no biological evidence of psychophysiological differences setting limits and direction on differing male and female emotion and behavior (and there is a huge amount of such evidence), this would force us to posit a male-female psychophysiologial differentiation that explains the societal universality.

The reality of this empirical reality can not be evaded by “redefining ‘patriarchy.” It is the empirical reality—whatever one wishes to call it—that demands explanation.

Steven Goldberg

Steven Goldberg is Professor Emeritus of City College, City University of New York. (via email, posted by Brandon (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The conclusions of Professor Goldberg have not been met with anything close to wide acceptance, but has in fact been widely criticized - especially his definition of Patriarchy itself. His ideas and publications of course need to be mentioned in the article - but not in a way that makes it seem as if his conclusions are undisputed facts.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While feminists can still delete serious entries on patriarchy, at least the discussion section now permanently has the evidence provided by the author of the only serious book on the issue. Duncan Butlin (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi you guys. I stopped by to say that no one person can be quoted as an expert, and instead find a whole lotta email. It does nothing to change my view. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. There are literally hundreds of writers that could be considered "authorities" on the issue of patriarchy. We don't need to quote them all in the article. The text of this article should provide an overview of the various issues and viewpoints, not act as a forum for one particular (and controversial) viewpoint. The endless efforts to turn this article into a vehicle for promoting Steven Goldberg are not welcome. From WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age-dependent status of women in patriarchical societies

I've been told in classes (by a professor specialising in the languages of the Caucasus) that even in societies traditionally seen as strictly patriarchal, such as traditional societies in the Islamic world, for example in the Caucasus, reality is more complex. While it is true that young woman have little if any say in society and are totally dominated by men, for example their husbands, as soon as they bear children, this begins to change, and their status gradually increases with old age so much that elder women are even more influential – in the (extended) family – than elder men are. Only with increasing Western influence, the status of the women is decreasing. At least that's how I remember the description; it may well be a simplification of the actual circumstances. Does anyone know more about this? It would provide an interesting valuable nuance to the patriarchy vs. matriarchy controversy, I think, by showing that the distinction is nowhere as clear-cut as the concepts insinuate. A remark about Mexico farther above is in a somewhat similar vein. Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine it depends highly on whether you are defining the scope of "status" to include political and economic power or limiting it to family/community influence. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if the people in the community all belong to the same extended family, and people rarely leave their village community in the first place, which isn't at all uncommon in the kind of traditional rural environment I was thinking of, there is no real difference and de facto the matriarchs have political and economic power. It may well be the same in Mexico. Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also the famous role of the mamma in Italy, especially Southern Italy, where family ties are very important, often more important than "official" political structures. As far as I understand traditional Italian society, the situation is quite comparable to how Mexican society is described above, with "covert matriarchal structures" within a "macho", patriarchal framework. I'm no sociologist, so I have to wonder if there is more research on this topic. Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent IP edit

If anyone else can check the sources and see if they confirm this edit (and comment generally on it), I'd appreciate it. I'm suspicious of any edit that doesn't have the full book title or page number if it is at all controversial. I'd love to know what Eller is being used for, she's not a supporter of some of the extreme matriarchy stuff. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sherry Ortner quote from Making Gender

" the game of power and authority we would call patriarchy, in which the role of father as an essentially political role emerges. Fathers are constructed as disciplined positions within a hierarchy, made responsible to the state as "heads of household"; at the same time fathers are accorded tremendous power and authority over the subordinates within their households, the women and the junior males; and finally fathers are highly fetishized within the symbolic order, as ancestors, gods, or God."·Maunus·ƛ· 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-deletion of anthropology material

The 2009 claimed merging of the Patriarchy (anthropology) article, seems to have resulted in just a deletion and lost of material. The current article has the section Patriarchy#Patriarchy in anthropology, archaeology and mythology, which can be used according to Summary Style for the main Patriarchy (anthropology) article, with the aim to expand upon and detail the subject.--Sum (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a mistake to create Patriarchy (anthropology) in the first place as it was simply a POV fork. The material should be here - feel free to include which ever materials you think are missing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The material that I deleted in the diff you cite was redundant at the time with identical material in Patriarchy (anthropology). The material was then restored a week later after the merge discussion was completed. So the merger had nothing to do with that material being deleted. The history info was deleted later by Hammy64000 due to it being unsourced, and the definition section was eventually deleted since it was redundant with the "Etymology and related terms" section. Kaldari (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still have to go trough all the info on the redirected/deleted article to check for lost information, including the definition by anthropologists. Regarding "the history info that was deleted by Hammy64000 due to it being unsourced," being unsourced is not an enough justification for removal; depending on the material itself, it is usually just tagged and kept. On User:Maunus comments, the article can be recreated at any time, an article on patriarchy in anthropology literature is not inherently a pov fork.--Sum (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to source stuff or tag it if it looks sourceable, if it doesn't look sourceable it can be removed. As for Patriarchy (anthropology) I agree it was a fork that should not have been created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to add information on patriarchy in anthropology, please add it here, don't create a fork. If the material is useful enough to keep (and other editors agree), but proves to be too lengthy to accommodate here, it can be spun off in proper fashion with a summary in the parent article. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Articles don't need pre-approval by your gang to be created.--Sum (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you propose the idea if you weren't interested in other people's feedback? This article has been forked numerous times (Universality of patriarchy, Patriarchy (anthropology), List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal, etc.), generally due to POV issues, so it should be understandable that people are skeptical of another forking proposal, or indeed a reforking proposal. If you feel strongly that you have content that can stand on its own, feel free to be bold and ignore the suggestions here. You should know, however, that the guideline against content forking wasn't created by the "gang" here. Nor were the people who supported the previous merger the same as the "gang" above. So you may have a hard time attracting support for retaining such an article. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the material that you added to Patriarchy (anthropology) was useful material and I would be happy to see it re-integrated into this article. When Patriarchy (anthropology) was merged with this article, your material was the only material that was deemed useful enough to actually merge. Please don't mistake my explanation for how/why the content was deleted with agreement that it should be deleted. No one in this current discussion was involved in deleting any of your material. I merely contributed to it being moved from the fork. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a gesture of collaboration, I have re-added your material that was deleted. I agree that most of it was deleted without adequate discussion during a period when the article was in heavy flux. I have also removed some of the unnecessary digression on the meaning of "patriarch" (which has it's own article and doesn't need detailed analysis here). Feel free to help integrate this material into the article further or add more material as you think is appropriate. Hopefully we can all work together to improve the article rather than falling into mutual distrust and name-calling. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I find the generalised use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD very annoying in this article. BC/AD is the more common usage in English speaking countries and the ERA terminology simply obfuscates the original meaning of the term. All eras are 'common eras' the terminology is ridiculous at best. There have been debates on Wikipedia on this topic, and although BCE/BC has been deemed acceptable, I think it should only be used in specific culturally relevant instances, such as articles pertaining to Jewish history, general articles on history should use acknowledge terminology.--Tallard (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarah Grimké on Scripture

"In the 19th Century, Sarah Grimke dared to question the divine origin of the scriptures."

This is patently incorrect (unless Grimké recanted all of her previous views at some late point in her life, in some text of which I am completely unaware). What Grimke questioned was the accepted interpretation of the scriptures -- a non-trivial distinction that probably got lost between either the cited book's summary of Sarah Grimké, or the summary of the cited book into this article.

Grimké questioned many many things it came to the Bible, and many of the ways she dealt with problematic passages were quite revolutionary. But one thing she did NOT do was question was divine origin of the scriptures.

From Grimké's Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, and the Condition of Woman (Boston: Issac Knapp, 1838):

"King James's translators certainly were not inspired. I therefore claim the original as my standard, believing that to have been inspired, and I also claim to judge for myself what is the meaning of the inspired writers, because I believe it to be solemn duty of every individual to search the Scriptures for themselves, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and not be governed by the views of any man, or set of men."

"I shall depend solely on the Bible to designate the sphere of woman, because I believe almost every thing that has been written on this subject, has been the result of a misconception of the simple truths revealed in the Scriptures, in consequence of the false translation of many passages of Holy Writ.

"Most commentators, having their minds preoccupied with the prejudices of education, afford little aid; they rather darken the text by the multitude of words."

"Now I must understand the sacred Scriptures as harmonizing with themselves, or I cannot receive them as the word of God."

And from Pamela R. Durso's The Power of Woman: The Life and Writings of Sarah Moore Grimké (Mercer University Press, 2003):

"She instead contended that male translators and interpreters of the Bible had introduced and propagated the mistaken concept of subordination. [...] Because she had serious doubts about men's ability to provide unbiased translations and interpretation of scripture, Sarah exhorted women to produce a new hermeneutic. She believed that once women had the scholarly tools necessary for the study of scripture, they could construct an accurate interpretation." (132)

"Sarah argued that the Bible had been incorrectly translated and misinterpreted, and she set out to present her own interpretation of scripture. The foundational understanding for her Biblical interpretation was that men and women were of equal worth because both were created in the image of God, and based on this truth, she offered her own explanations about various scriptural passages that dealt with the role of women, and in doing so, Sarah became one of the first Americans to provide a biblical challenge to the treatment of women and to the limited role and opportunities offered to them" (186).

Also per the above, it was Grimké's extensive interpretation and exegesis, not a questioning of the inspiration of the Bible, that inspired Stanton:

"In refuting the position that women should be subordinate to men, Stanton relied on Sarah's biblical analysis of male superiority. She valued Sarah's insight into scripture so much that she incorporated much of Sarah's exegesis in the publication in 1989 of the controversial Woman's Bible. [...] The intent of the Woman's Bible was to correct the prevalent anti-female interpretation of scripture." (189)

Grimké criticized the translation of various words, criticized traditional interpretations of passages, and was highly skeptical on men's ability to translate and interpret passages about women correctly. She spilled an inordinate amount of ink talking about the historical and cultural context in which the original passages were written, attempting to demonstrate that many of them applied to specific historically-bound situations and were not universal commands. But the fact that Grimké went to such lengths to interpret/explain those passages was precisely BECAUSE she believed the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God, and an authoritative text from which to defend the equality of women. It's part of what makes her brand of feminism distinctive. --Glass Gypsy (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for correcting and expanding the material related to Grimké. Your explanation seems quite thorough and convincing. Kaldari (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Now that I've bothered with all that... a) the feminist critique of patriarchy starts a helluva lot earlier than Grimké, b) that paragraph focuses only the roots of American (Christian) challenges to patriarchy, which is laughably disproportionate, and c) given the limited content in this article already, how much space should actually be taken up with the feminist critique?

And am I crazy for thinking that this article could be a hell of a lot longer and better and more detailed than it is?? There's pages about individual poems that have more text in them than this one, and it's not like patriarchy is some minor insignificant topic. --Glass Gypsy (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has a very problematic history and has been gutted and refactored a few times over the years. Please feel free to jump in and start expanding it! Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is largely ridiculous. It reads like a deconstructionalist approach of third wave feminism. I mean really, the dominant view with a huge amount of empirical data, evolutionary psychology, gets a couple sentences? Third wave feminist sociologists who define patriarchy on issues like whether or not a woman is more likely than a man to do household chores? This is largely a laughing stock of a view within sociology. This is no way an encyclopedic take on patriarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on Kaldari Patriarchy edit

This is commentary on the recent edits to the Patriarchy wiki page. The Feminist viewpoint on Patriarchy seems to be out of place and not belonging in the Patriarchy wiki page. That paragraph appears to be defining Feminism by explaining their viewpoint. Furthermore, that viewpoint seems to be loaded with a negative bias towards Patriarchy. I am not defending Patriarchy or disagreeing that what explained is their viewpoint or saying they are wrong in their viewpoint (I agree with some of it), just that it has no place on a different wiki page other then the Feminism wiki page. If we include the Feminist opinion toward Patriarchy, why not include everyone else's opinion on Patriarchy?

I believe the section violates the 'Wikipidea Pilar' of a neutral point of view and also simply does not belong on the Patriarchy wiki page.

Thanks for reading this, take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Neutral Point of View policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." It also states that "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic." Since the feminist viewpoint regarding patriarchy is a prominent viewpoint, it must be given representation in the article. Similarly, we should include all viewpoints regarding Patriarchy that are significantly prominent (with due weight). If you know of other viewpoints that could be added to the article, please feel free to suggest them. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well then this article would clearly fail that standard then, wouldn't it? In no way possible is the third wave feminist view of the definition of patriarchy in balance in this article, at all. It's larger than the evolutionary psychology explanation, which is the predominant view, by far, by orders of magnitude. This has been suggested, time and again. It's just another example of the growing failure of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domination of Women

Women may be dominated under historical patriarchial systems, however, this does not define a patriarchy. A patriarchy can and, in many cases, has existed without domination of women. This is just as true for matriarchy - domination of men does not define a matriarchy and does not happen in many cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewJDavis (talkcontribs) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on, did you really expect this article to be NPOV? Look at the 'See Also' section: 'Domestic violence', 'Rape', 'Sexual violence'. (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MatthewJDavis: How can one class have power over the other and it not be considered domination? Merriam-Webster gives 3 definitions of domination:
  • supremacy or preeminence over another
  • exercise of mastery or ruling power
  • exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence
Patriarchy seems to meet all 3 definitions, so I don't really understand your argument. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice try. Use the non-neutral connotative definition of a word to push your point, and when someone disagrees argue using the neutral dictionary definition. Classic. (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also section

Hi, I removed the links to Anti feminism, Domestic violence Rape and Sexual violence of the See also section, because I could find no mention of these themes in this article. I could find no reference to patriarchy in the linked articles either. I think the reverting, if at all, of these links should be accompanied by some explanations as to the reasons of the presence of these links.

I also replaced the link to Anti feminism by one to Feminism. Please note that I am not discussing the appropriateness of the mention of the Feminist viewpoints on Patriarchy in the article. Marsupilamov (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realize that it, literally, is incoherent to include a link to one ideology and not its negation, right? If stance X is relevant to the article, then by logical necessity, stance ~X is also relevant. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What, no flags?

I am confused. (Seriously, good work!) Billbrock (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added counter examples

Yeah, this "history article" [sic] is a laughably biased short story about how feminism is awesome.

I believe in female social position and also (duh) female freedom--I think women are equally smart, capable, etc. etc. as men--but the slant on history here is blind to contrary evidence. Not an encyclopedia entry as much as a college freshmen gender studies paper written to please a teacher who already agrees with this story.

Not sure, for instance, if non-Christians are the enemy here (like Alexander the Great and Aristotle) or Christians (like Paul and Luther).

In a TINY STEP in the right direction, I added examples from Plato about honored women, and also statements about the primacy of women from Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox sources.

I added a bunch of "Who? What? Where? Which?" to just a few the nasty weasel words throughout.

Feel free to build on my work--or scratch it if you think the essay should stand as is.

If so, we need a (laughably simplified) version of how women were dominant until the 19th century, when Christian men rebelled against Christianity and asserted that men need rights too. Cheers, CircularReason (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If women were dominant, why were they not allowed to own property or participate in higher education, government, or religious leadership? You seem to have a strange definition of "dominant". Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I disagree that women were dominant, the issues of higher education, property and government were, until recently, almost exclusively the domain of the rich, which were a tiny minority of the overall population. Patriarchy implies a systematic dominance of males; from my POV, poor males did not enjoy such dominance, but rather had relatively equable terms with poor females, as a general rule.
Do you have any examples or sources? I can think of several examples of how even poor men were historically dominant over poor women. For example, until recently it was legal and socially accepted for men to physically discipline (i.e. beat) their wives if they refused to obey them in most parts of the world, as wives were considered property of the husband. No such right has ever existed for women. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No such right has ever existed for women". Except it totally has. Just google "husband beating" or "castration" -- (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedia.com is an unreliable source?

That whole paragraph was attributed to the same source, but someone requested a citation in the middle of the paragraph. This seems arbitrary to divide up a paragraph that is already cited and ask for a separate citation. And on what basis is that source unreliable? --Nameshmame (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On what basis is it reliable is the correct question, reliability is not the default. At WP:RSN we've already said that generalist encyclopedias should be avoided where possible. This particular encyclopedia basically reproduces other sources. In any case, a quick google books search turned up clearly reliable sources. But the issue seems to have been solved now so I won't add the ones I found. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV dispute?

Page is carrying a NPOV dispute tag and refers here, but I don't see any discussion regarding NPOV. I'm going to remove the tag; if there is in fact a dispute, please point me to it. Thanks MinervaK (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what that tag was referring to either. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this some sort of joke? The NPOV dispute is detailed in every entry section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undoing recent edit by User Talk: Ben Kraizer

  • This whole section reads very POV and it needs a lot more than one citation for all of the claims presented.

Patriarch is first and foremost about power, domination and control. [1] There is often a confusion with calling patriarchy "male oppression," and while patriarchy is a contributor to male oppression, it is merely a masculine influenced, socially constructed, power structure. The feminist movement is the primary force that is attempting to change the way that power is exercised, however there is some discord in the movement as to how to best approach a shift of power; most of these interjections are due to differences in race and/or class. For instance, upper class white women may be content to keep the current patriarchal power structure in place and participate equally in the domination of others, where as a lower class person of colour may have a more communal, familial, approach to the exercise of power. The problem with the feminists' approach to patriarchy is to blame men; make men the enemy and women the victim. [2] Patriarchy may be a form of domination over others (men and women) but it is likely that women who ascend to positions of power will exercise power the same way as men do; because it is a deep social structure within western society.

That is not to say that there are not other sources of power in a capitalist society, other than patriarchal political power. bell hooks argues in her book Feminist Theory from Margin to Center that women are fairly dominant in the economic sphere of consumption. While it is of course an economic sphere that was created, and is wildly controlled, by patriarchal power the ability to affect supply and demand on a scale like this suggests the possibility form of power working bottom up, as opposed to top down. [3]

Rgambord (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While this is certainly POV, it stands to note that it's also rather POV to declare that all patriarchy entails the subordination of women or that all forms of feminism universally oppose it. Particularly considering that the article on matriarchy makes no mention of the subordination of men and in fact makes claims of egalitarianism. If a matriarchal system can exist without subordinating men, then it stands to reason that a patriarchal system should be possible without the subordination of women. And in regard to feminism, while I'm not particularly familiar with the different movements, it doesn't seem appropriate to use the word "all", as it excludes any movement that isn't absolute. While it makes sense that feminism would by definition oppose the subordination of women, this shouldn't imply a universal opposition of patriarchy any more than patriarchy should imply a universal suppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ hooks, bell (1999). "Changing Perspectives on Power". Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. South End Press. pp. 84–95. ISBN 978-0-89608-613-5.
  2. ^ hooks, bell (1999). "Changing Perspectives on Power". Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. South End Press. pp. 84–95. ISBN 978-0-89608-613-5.
  3. ^ hooks, bell (1999). "Changing Perspectives on Power". Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. South End Press. pp. 84–95. ISBN 978-0-89608-613-5.

Paternity certainty

This article is incomplete without consideration of paternity certainty.

When people lived as hunter-gatherers, or in small tribes, nomadic, or semi-nomadic, with some informal agriculture and herding, relations between males and females of the same band or tribe were generally egalitarian. Both contributed about equally to the food supply. People accumulated few possessions, because possessions were too difficult to store and transport, so there was little concern about inheritance of wealth, property or valuable possessions. Herds and gardens were owned and tended communally. Children were raised communally, though their mothers gave the most care, particularly in infancy and early childhood. In many times and places, the male relatives of the mother were responsible for care and education of children, as they got older, or if the mother was unavailable. (Men and women born from the same mother can be certain they are related by blood.) Ancestral humans may have accepted theories of "shared fatherhood." Consequently, there was relatively little concern about which man had fathered which child.

As modern agriculture began to develop and people began to live sedentary, agricultural lives, land was more often individually owned. As human population densities increased, local game and food supplies were depleted, return to the hunter-gatherer way of life became impossible.

Meanwhile, plowing fields became necessary to grow food for survival. This is heavy work. Larger and more muscular men can plow far more land per day than smaller, less muscular women. Families became concerned about passing valuable land, houses and other possessions to their offspring. If mothers passed these things on to their children, matriarchy and matrilineality were possible, at least in theory. In this case, there was no doubt about who their children were.

By comparison, if men passed land, possessions and houses on to their children, they wanted to be certain that they were the biological fathers of their children. This is called "paternity certainty." It is a partly biological imperative. It is not absolute, of course. Men do sometimes accept adopted children and bond to them, for example. Nevertheless, men everywhere prefer to pass their wealth on to their biological children, when given the choice.

Because men operated the plow, in many places they considered themselves the owners of the land they plowed. As human population densities increased, with the development of agriculture, patriarchy became more common. Early Hebrew people were early adopters of patriarchy, partly because they were early adopters of farming, settled living and high population densities. This is the likely source of the Judaeo-Christian tradition of patriarchy.

Unfortunately, paternity certainty is impossible unless female sexual freedom is suppressed. Females prefer to make their own sexual choices, just as men do, so brutal suppression of female sexual freedom was often found necessary in patriarchal societies and it continues to be brutal and nearly pervasive in modern times.

In post-modern times, is it possible that brutal suppression of female sexual freedom will be generally abandoned? Although most Wikipedia readers object to it, this is still the norm for most women, all over the world. There are some reasons to believe that it could come to an end. Machinery and intellectual work are generally replacing physical work, making superior size and strength less necessary. DNA testing and child support laws are a relatively new way of ascertaining parentage and providing for support of children. Given modern birth control, many people elect not to reproduce, or adopt children.

I don't have authoritative citations handy, and I don't routinely write or edit wikipedia articles -- don't really know how, so I'll have to leave it to others to write the passages I suggest. Some citations can be found in Jared Diamond's books. He always provides a big bibliography.

Although offensive to some, David Buss's published works on mate choice, jealousy, dread of cuckoldry and so on, provide abundant citations of careful scientific research on these topics.

There's a good book, authoritative, I think, regarding the changes in social structure that occurred all over the world as humans made the gradual transition to settled living and agriculture. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society [Paperback]. Alexandra Maryanski (Author), Jonathan H. Turner (Author). It's out of print, but available from used book dealers. It might have been supplanted by newer works on the same topic. (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's me again, the author of the comment on paternity certainty above, adding one more comment.

Paternity uncertainty is not socially constructed. And yet it is not exactly instinctive, either. It's just a fact of biology. Women know who their children are. Men normally have reason to doubt. For the relatively few species that require male care of offspring, particularly humans, this has profound consequences. (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually paternity is socially constructed. In fact, EVERYTHING is socially constructed according to the original social constructionists Berger and Luckmann. Check out their book which introduced Social Construction Theory: _The Social Construction of Reality.

"The basic contentions of the argument of this book are imp­ licit in its title and sub-title, namely, that reality is socially constructed and that the sociology of knowledge must analyse the process in which this occurs." The Social Construction of Reality page 13.

Removed Wikiproject Mens Issues

Removed Wikiproject Mens' Issues. If there is a relevant discussion about it, please point me towards it. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I oppose it being removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • re-add patriarchy and critiques of the theory of patriarchy are an important part of men's rights literature.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep a link to feminism, but removing a link to men's issues, on a page discussing patriarchy, is a valid conclusion to some people here? X and ~X as necessarily equally relevant to the subject matter? Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Hello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological versus social theories

"As a common standard of differentiation between genders, advocates for a patriarchal society like to focus on the influences that hormones have over biological systems"

Who is advocating patriarchy? Does this statement mean that anyone taking a biological perspective on this issue advocates for patriarchy, or that most do, or even that some key figures do? I know of no key figures in evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology who advocate patriarchy, and although I have observed biological arguments made by MRA's, I'm not aware of any of those arguments being made in support of patriarchy. In fact, most MRA's don't even believe in patriarchy, and instead use biological arguments as evidence either against the existence of patriarchy, or more specifically against the notion of patriarchy as a system deliberately created by men to oppress women. So this statement looks like a colossal strawman, designed to create in the mind of the reader the image of some unspecified pro-patriarchy oppressor, using biological arguments to keep women down. Since the position alluded to by this statement is not well attested, and is indeed uncited, this looks to me like an NPOV violation.

Further on in this section, we run into even more NPOV issues:

"Some opponents of feminism have argued that patriarchy has its origin in biological factors. This is called biological determinism, "

First of all, not everyone who believes that "patriarchy has its origin in biological factors" is an opponent of feminism, or even necessarily a non-feminist. Some feminists don't even believe in patriarchy. Second of all, the notion that "patriarchy has its origin in biological factors" is not the same as biological determinism. Whoever wrote this should should read that article, instead of just linking to it. Remember, this isn't only an article about feminism -since not everyone who believes in patriarchy is a feminist- and even if it were, it would still need to be NPOV.

The remainder of this section gives way too little space for biological arguments, too much space for sociological arguments, and is also poorly worded E.G. "during the time of the nomads, however, patriarchy still grew with power.". *What* 'time of the nomads'? The whole section needs to be restructured, getting rid of NPOV issues, and being sure both sides of the "biology versus sociology" argument are fairly and accurately represented. If necessary, major proponents of both perspectives could be given their own headings, so that people who know about their positions or are willing to research them can expand the article without having to modify whole paragraphs in place. Please fix these issues. Comiscuous (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are good points. If you have ideas for improving the wording, feel free to go ahead and make some changes. We can always refine the wording afterwards. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's going to require a big rewrite. The opposing sides of the argument need to be presented in a very clear way, and I think it's going to require individual subheadings for proponents of different views. Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate right now. If you or someone else is motivated to clean this up, please do so. Otherwise it's going to have to wait a few weeks. Comiscuous (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be better if we just blank the section and start over from scratch. For instance, the section is poorly formatted, written with admittedly obvious bias and only 3 sources. Anyone opposed to such an action may respond to me. I highly recommend that if anyone here is an expert on gender studies to do a rewriting of this entire section. I will return in 2 weeks to see if any progress has been made and will continue from there. Breckham101 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would object to that. As a general rule, it is bad to erase things and start over; in this case, while there is clearly a lot that needs rewriting (I've made some tweaks and improved some of the references myself), a lot of the section is still good. Lewontin, Goldberg, and Gould are all good sources for this subject, with Lewontin and Goldberg represent two of the most prominent writers for its main streams of thought, and Gould obviously having credible expertise. Much of what the section says about them is valuable, even if the writing could be improved and a few more sources introduced. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I'm happy someone's helping to improve this section. I apologize for my former statement, as I was disillusioned by the quality and neutrality of the section in question. My main problem with the section is that It tends to state things as facts instead of presenting the propositions in a more neutral tone and contains original research. Hope this explains my position further. Have a happy New Year by the way. Breckham101 (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Filmer Reference

I think if we are going to include Robert Filmer, we need to either expand it and have a direct quote or to delete it entirely. For someone who's looking for the origins of Patriarchy Theory in feminism, this is misleading and a waste of time.

What does the Divine Right of Kings have to do with Patriarchy besides the fact that Filmer's book's title sounds a bit similar?

He mentioned marriage 1 time in a 48 page book and it was more about" "The Dissentions which were daily between the Nobles and the Commons, bred those memorable Seditions about Usury, about Marriages, and about Magistracy. Also the Græcian, the Apulian, and the Drusian Seditions, filled the Market-Places, the Temples, and the Capitol it self, with Blood of the Citizens; the Social War was plainly Civil; the Wars of the Slaves, and the other of the Fencers; the Civil Wars of Marius and Sylla, of Cataline, of Cæsar and Pompey the Triumvirate, of Augustus, Lepidus and Antonius: All these shed an Ocean of Blood within Italy and the Streets of Rome."

The way I see it, Patriarchy is about the extra-legal way in which men have solidarity with both men and renegade women in order to control women in ways which are not totally apparent to men who have not studied feminism.

Filmer was arguing one government system over another. Since we live in a a Republic where >50% of the voters are women, but we still live in a Patriarchy, this has nothing to do with formal government nor the legal system.

I'm not even suggesting specific changes. We can add or delete information, I just want it to be more clear to students, like me, who want this page to answer simple questions on what Feminist author first mentioned Patriarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talkcontribs) 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Feminist Theory” Section lacks clarity.

From the first sentence I find it hard, with a room full of people who work with language professionally, to extract any concrete meaning from the sentences therein.

One issue I see is that there is no clear definition of "Feminist theory", who the authorities on that might be, or what theory there is at all. This is "feminist lexicography", and the best that a lexicographer could do with this word is say that in this context it has a meaning so vague that its synonyms should be "bad" or "the enemy".

Another issue is that other terms are used with "fluid" definitions in this section, rendering the language redundant at best; for instance, the word "oppressive" does not have any concrete meaning in this context, in other words, it doesn't mean anything.

What is usually done with sections like these in an article, is complete deletion. When a section lacks any concrete meaning, answers no questions about a topic, and confuses readers: that is when it is removed entirely.

I recommend this fate for the "Feminist Theory" section, that is unless somebody comes along to have the section suddenly take on meaning, after being ambiguous for this entire time. (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I don't follow your argument. The section seems pretty clear and well-written to me. Feminist theory doesn't need to be defined here any more than sociology needs to be defined. Just follow the link. The section even mentions bell hooks specifically, so I don't agree that it is unclear who it is talking about. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Feminist theory doesn't need to be defined here any more than sociology needs to be defined."

...yeeees. But I would assume that 'Patriarchy', as (again, vaguely) defined by Feminist Theory, should be defined in the section of Feminist Theory on the definition of Patriarchy. (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) WhimsicalCabbageReply[reply]

Egypt left no philosophy and the broadly speculative nature of the history section

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Ancient_Egyptian_philosophy "Egypt left no philosophical record" yet wikipedia seems to think it did by having an article on ancient eqyptian philosphy. The whole section is citing the personal speculative opinions of experts and not actual history . "Famine, starvation and mass-migrations related to land-abandonment severely traumatised the originally peaceful and sex-positive inhabitants of those lands, inducing a distinct turning away from original matrism towards patristic forms of behaviour." What evidence does the cited authority, James DeMeo, have that those societies where sex positive of all things. What archaeological evidence can be used to prove that a modern cultural notion like sex positivity is present in a culture nearly 10000 years ago that existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation of a recent revert to Patriarchy's definition

Here I am referring to the following (here) revert which I performed believing it was some sort of test by an amateur editor. Reasons: 1) I do not believe that Patriarchy's definition is simply the opposite of matriarchy. You should not start a definition of such a pervasive concept by reducing it to the opposite of the other side of its gender category. 2) Patriarchy is far from being simply exercised in the "domain of the family," but that is how this new changes made it to be. Though it later included something about how it affects the society in general, it named it as "alternative" and in doing so, it diminishes the meaning and impact of patriarchy. My revert was in turn reverted (here), which was politely explained in my Talk Page (Thanks: I like polite editors), but I still stand by my revert since I think that even when the original was not perfect, it was better worded than the anon's change. But I leave the issue to those guarding this page. --Caballero/Historiador 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and have restored your version of the lead. Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is womanhating

it's tone needs to be changed. Include the fact that Male violence against women is a key feature of patriarchy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

(Redacted) (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a specific amendment to the article, and reliable sources to support it, please feel free to make that change. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

virtually all societies today are, in practice, patriarchal

A sweeping statement based on one single source. Are there no nuances? Is Sweden as patriarchal as Saudi Arabia? The cited source by the way only says "most". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • user:Simaimch removing the whole sentence has not been discussed; there is no justification for deleting sourced content that only needs adjusting to better summarize the source. Please provide a justification for removnig this, especially after it was adjusted to address the objection above. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Jytdog 1. The source is not publicly available. There is no way to know how the source could be quoted. If it's a quotation from the source at all instead of original research. 2. Even if it is actually written in this way in the source there is no way that this is undisputed. 3. The claim "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property and most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal" depends very much on the definition of "society". Does it equal "nations" in this context? Then it's arguably wrong. Does it equal "cultures"? That's way more inaccurate => I'm ok with using the word "many", but "most" or even "all" are way too blunt claims to make on the basis of a single quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simaimch (talkcontribs) 21:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a book. There are things called "libraries". Of course it is publicly available. The source says "most". Your complete removal was invalid and your edit is not supported by the source. Do not edit WP based on your personal beliefs. We follow sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


in my view there is no need to attribute as is done here and no reason has been given. The source is a reliable secondary source and can be summarized in WP voice. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. "Some people" is also WP:Weasel wording. And since it's not just those authors stating this matter, attributing it to those authors would be a WP:INTEXT violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marxist theory

I was surprised that this article doesn't mention Marxist theory more prominently. According to Thomas Keith, Marxist theory is one of the "most cited explanations" of patriarchy. So I added a brief summary to the History and Origin section, based on Keith's explanation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It is problematic to speak of things like "Marxist theory" in the singular. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's problematic, the source doesn't mention it. Keith uses "Marxist theory" in the singular. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that is an introductory textbook for you. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thread retitled from "Unbalanced".

This page does a good job of describing patriarchy as it is more or less defined by multiple parties. It does an ok job of citing sources, although on checking some of the sourced links, the article text is not consistent with the cited material.

Additionally this page lacks a section covering criticism of this construct, as described in WP:OPPONENT

Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ethanpet113: In order for your concerns to be addressed, we are going to need to know more specifics. Which parts of the article are not consistent with the sources? Regarding criticism, Wikipedia:Criticism discourages the creation of sections specifically devoted to criticism. (See WP:CSECTION specifically.) Instead criticism should be integrated into the body of the article itself. It seems that the article already has content criticizing patriarchy (for example, the Feminist theory section), but it sounds like you are looking for criticism of the very idea of patriarchy itself. If you know of any sources that argue against the existence of patriarchy, please let us know so that we can integrate them into the article. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Criticism of patriarchy as a in a social setting is addressed under the feminism section:

However, it is important to recognise the negative influence that the patriarchy can have on males, and also that females can cause oppression and mistreatment to their own sex by embodying and living down to common stereotypes.

But does not appear to address any historic notion of patriarchy. I am uncertain whether it would be correct to deny the existence of patriarchal themes in many parts of human culture, there are many situations in which women are and have been systematically been disadvantaged. However the concept is of patriarchy as defined in the opening section.

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

Seems to suggest that patriarchy is to have control of all these attributes simultaneously. There are two common arguments regarding this, which do not necessarily invalidate patriarchy as a concept, but merit some investigation. If not a criticism section, I would like to know where structurally it would be recommended to include such information.

Patriarchy as a concept ignores the expendability of men in society

Some (often libertarians for some reason) would argue that although it was historically unjust to for example confine women to home life, and child rearing; this was part of a social contract for which they were offered protection and was beneficial for the safety of both women and the children they were responsible for rearing.

Although historic figures are less well known certain contemporary figures are.

  • 98% of combat deaths are men
  • 80% of workplace fatalities happen to men

Although men held political authority and property authority, they did not have social privilege because privileged groups should not be conscripted and women should logically hold the moral authority since this would be transmitted memetically in child rearing.

It's not necessarily a particularly strong case but it is worth mentioning for the sake of encyclopedic completeness. Perhaps it does not belong in a section onto itself, but certainly there should at least be a section on "contemporary patriarchy"

The patriarchy in feminist theory must be adapted to suit modern statistics for developed nations

Patriarchy is and live and well in developing nations In the united states however:

  • About 60% of all college degrees are earned by women
  • Among single people under 35, women out-earn men
  • Among single people of all age groups, women earn 96% as much as men
  • 98% of combat deaths are men
  • 78% of homicide victims are men
  • 78% of suicides are committed by men
  • 80% of workplace fatalities happen to men
  • 75% of jobs lost in the Great Recession belonged to men
  • 80% of divorces are initiated by women
  • 16% of men receive children in custody battles
  • 85% of household spending is controlled by women

Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That falls afoul of our original research and WP:SYNTH policies - that is to say, you're gathering statistics and then suggesting that we use them to try and make an argument to the reader. We can't do that; we report arguments rather than making them ourselves. So what you need is eg. a citation to a source or two that passes WP:RS and WP:DUE and which uses these statistics to make the argument you feel the article needs to represent. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok so for example Dr. Warren Farrell Ph.D discusses some of these issues at length in his book "The Myth of Male Power"(1993), although it was released some time ago so the statistics are out of date. Is it acceptable to present modern statistics beside but not accredited to Dr. Farrell or do the statistics and Dr Farrells quotations have to be separated, or must I avoid citing government statistics for some other reason?
Ethanpet113 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would not be appropriate to present detailed statistics just about the United States, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:WORLDVIEW. This article is about patriarchy across the world and throughout history. We should try to keep it more general rather than focusing on a particular country. Throwing in a couple of example statistics might be appropriate, but like Aquillion says, we should only report the arguments of others, not use the article to present our own arguments. Also, per WP:NPOV if we presented statistics from one side of an argument, we would also be obligated to present statistics from the other side as well (in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources), and the article would quickly degenerate into competing lists of statistics. If you could give us some examples of what The Myth of Male Power says about patriarchy (especially if you can find some broad statements), perhaps we could help you figure out how to integrate it into the article. Keep in mind, however, that WP:WEIGHT requires that we represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That means if 90% of published sources about patriarchy are written from a feminist point of view, 90% of our article should be devoted to that point of view. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nota bene* I've removed the {{Unbalanced}} tag until more reliable, scholarly sources are shown to present views neglected on the article, not pop psychologists like Warren Farrell. Also, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:BALANCE discourage a back-and-forth between proponents and critics of a theory or idea, instead suggesting using secondary and tertiary sources that comment on a disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's a concern about WP:WORLDVIEW, one could simply write a patriarchy in the United States or patriarchy in North America article. The country's history goes back far enough that maybe an article could be written about that. The 19th Amendment wasn't passed till 1920, for example.

This stuff about the expendability of men gets into the area of sociobiology, aka evolutionary psychology, so it wouldn't surprise me if there ends up being pushback due to the perceived pseudoscientific nature of those fields. Of course, there are many social sciences of equally dubious validity (e.g. Psychiatry, where a majority vote determines what gets considered a disorder) but evopsych is more politically incorrect. (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV tag

Aristotele1982 added a NPOV tag with the following text:

The neutrality of this article is debatable. The Section "Biological Versus Social Theories" is highly biased in favour of social and in the first part displays only one source in support of biological theories which is in turn not supporting the standpoint of biological theories (Lewontin). Furthermore, the article defends that the Bateman's principle has been superseeded by "attachment fertility theory" which is not only a false statement on its own (inasmuch Bateman studies have not been superseeded at all, but criticized in some parts) but it belittles the debate among biologists. The theory of attachment fertility (which is still a very young theory and higly disputed, see Miller et Fishkin 1997) is mostly sociologically driven with very little support from biology and biologists. The entire section needs revision. For a general outlook on the complexity of the issue with the use of Bateman's principle, I would suggest taking into account the article by MARK E. HAUBER and EILEEN A. LACEY: "Bateman’s Principle in Cooperatively Breeding Vertebrates: The Effects of Non-breeding. Alloparents on Variability in Female and Male Reproductive Success.

I am moving the text here where it belongs. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A recent Norwegian documentary Hjernevask has shown that in countries like Norway which has the greatest gender equity in the world. Where women can choose to do what they want, then females choose traditional gender roles. This is termed the "gender equity paradox" and the subject of the documentary. It nullifies much of the socilogical findings. The documentary suggests that the sociological studies were political in nature not scientific.
See also https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Kibbutz#Gender_equality which again demonstrates that given the choice females revert to traditional gender roles in spite of them being born in a strong feminist gender - equity setting.
'"The documentary 'Full Circle' summarizes the change in the women's view of equality on the kibbutz. The original Utopian goal of the founders was complete gender equality. Children lived in the children's houses. Freed from domestic duties, women participated in the industrial, agricultural and economic sectors alongside men. However, in the 1960s, while the rest of the Western world demanded equality of the sexes and embraced feminism, the second generation of kibbutz born women began to return to more traditional gender roles. They rejected the ideal achieved by their grandparents and returned to domestic duties such as cooking, cleaning and taking care of children. Today, most women do not participate in the economic and industrial sectors of the kibbutz. They even embraced traditional marriage.'
Biology trumps social engineering every time. But a price will be paid by those duped by social engineers. (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your logic is significantly flawed, but arguing you on it would be futile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is only an issue with one section (and a valid issue that is actually supported by the WP:Neutral policy), the tag should be placed in the section, not at the top of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • to make a valid claim of POV you have to make an argument based on what NPOV actually says. You also placed the sourcing tag but have said nothing about what is unsourced in the article. I have removed both tags. Please try talking before tagging. thx Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for removing the tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

male vs female mate preferences

User jytdog said that my edits were "ridiculously wrong." would you mind explaining why? Sewblon 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talkcontribs)

Thanks for coming to talk. In your diffs here and here, you introduced two sources:
  • PMID 26068718
  • ISBN 978-0-205-99212-6
The first ref there is what we call a primary source, and it is not OK to use primary sources for anything related to biomedical information - and this kind of human behavior is very much in that ballpark. Please use recent literature reviews from high quality journals or academic books.
The second source is an academic book so is OKish. What is "ridiculously wrong" is your summarizing a pretty well-written, nuanced chapter, that brought in all kinds of culture stuff from various times, along with the putative evolutionary stuff, and summarized it as "...So, the evo-psych hypothesis that sexual selection exerts different pressure on human males than on human females is still plausible.(pmid ref) For example, women assign twice as much importance to their partner's financial status as men do when selecting long-term partners."(book ref)
That is not a summary of the source. I get it, that you thought you could use a factoid from that book as some "evidence" to make an argument, but we don't make arguments here. That is WP:SYN.
We summarize high quality sources here; we follow them. We don't use them to mine bits from which to build arguments. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Most of the content in this article is either unbalanced or clearly ideologically driven. For instance, the idea that for Aristotle all defects are due to the female partner only is untrue, as in the De generatione animalium Aristotle identifies also many cases in which the male seed is imperfect or too week. Besides, male infertility was very well known to Greek philosophers and to Aristotle in particular. As for the biological argument, the article states: "A growing body of research has found key points of the biological argument to be groundless." There is no quote to substantiate this claim and the following statement is false, especially as referred to average intelligence. Results found so far, and in the most of the recent studies on the topic (from D.Harper to S. Baron Cohen and S. Pinker) show, at the best, that the results are at the best inconsistent, so cannot be used in one way or another. Finally Standard sociological theory has been consistently rejected by scientists as "not science", for the idea that gender roles are "primarily learned" originates from the studies of John Money whose theory are now disregarded after the surgical re-assignment of David Reimer. I would suggest less ideology and more careful study: we all are in favour of a society where men women and non binary people are equal, but this cannot be done by using false or ideologically driven arguments, especially when not supported by scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 11:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Standard sociological theory has been consistently rejected by scientists as "not science" – citation, please?
  • The idea that gender roles are "primarily learned" originates from the studies of John Money whose theory are now disregarded after the surgical re-assignment of David Reimer – Money apparently coined the term gender role, but the social-learning theory of gender goes beyond Money's work. According to Ronald F. Levant and Kathleen Alto:

    There is substantial empirical support that gender roles are social constructs that vary significantly across time, context, and culture. A recent synthesis of meta-analytic studies of gender differences provides strong evidence for a social construct understanding of gender. Ethan Zell and colleagues examined more than 20,000 findings from 12 million participants comparing men and women on topics ranging from risk-taking to body image. The authors found that the majority of effects were very small to small, indicating far more similarities than differences between genders.[1]

  • Money's theories being "disregarded", whether due to David Reimer's case or not, would also need a reliable source to be included in the article. Nevertheless, we must avoid straying too far from the actual topic, which may be a reason to remove some of the background theory information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pending any concrete suggestions on how to improve the article, I've removed the {{POV}} tag, which is supposed to be temporary anyway. This discussion appears to have stalled; the problem, if any, appears to be with a few questionable statements – feel free to tag them with {{dubious}} or {{citation needed}} as appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Levant, R.F.; Alto, K.M. (2017). "Gender Role Strain Paradigm". In Nadal, Kevin L (ed.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender. SAGE Publications. p. 718. ISBN 978-1-48-338427-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Human mating preferences

This article makes it sound like human mating preferences are monomorphic. "that is, both men and women prefer caring, attractive, and successful partners." The source cited says no such thing. It confirms that men are more interested in looks in their mates than women are. "The difference is plausibly a consequence of, the fact that, although both sexes care about good, looks in a mate, on average, men care somewhat more, (Buss, 1989; Lippa, 2007)." page 149. The page on mate choice confirms that women value financial status in their mates more than men do. Mate choice. So, am I missing something that makes this information not relevant? Or is should the summary be amended to reflect this information? Sewblon 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The actual source cited for financial status states that "modern U.S. women [...] value economic resources in mates substantially more than men do" (Buss 2015, p. 107). It's not possible to generalize mating preferences globally from this. For one thing, "financial status" is meaningless in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies where individuals generally do not accumulate property. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unreliable source--> deletion

I deleted this paragraph because it was based on a work of fiction: "In medieval Europe, patriarchy was not absolute, as female Empresses (such as Theodora) and Matriarchs (such as Helena, the mother of Constantine) enjoyed privilege, political rule, and societal honor. [unreliable source?] In the religious sphere, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches restricted the priesthood to males, yet viewed the church itself as a mother." An earlier Wikipedian had noted that this was an unreliable source. We can put it back in if someone finds a reliable source. AnaSoc (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminist theory section

The feminist theory section needs a rewrite. Feminist theorists have made the most important contributions to the understanding of patriarchy and its various forms, e.g. capitalist patriarchy, and therefore this section needs to be more comprehensive. Does anyone have objections to me giving it a try? AnaSoc (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnaSoc, I meant to state this after I saw you add it, but I wanted to wait to see if anyone else would address it: This much book content was WP:Undue weight. And I see that Hippo43 reduced its size today. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Hippo43 for the edits. Lerner's work is extremely important to the understanding of patriarchy, but you made a good suggestion to edit out the summary of her arguments. AnaSoc (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This edit introduced referencing errors: name=":0" had already been used, I have changed it to name="Tong". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC).


Article is centered around Western culture despite the topic being presented as a global issue, and there being many examples of Eastern/African cultures being oppressive towards women. I will be adding a template to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDiana (talkcontribs) 03:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would benefit this article if we were to add some more examples outside of Western culture. If anyone happens to be knowledgeable on Patriarchy around the world and has a good source, I agree that it would make a wonderful addition to this article. Flameoguy (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed addition

I added what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial sentence in the lead:

Beginning in the 19th century, however, various movements, including communism, women's suffrage, and women's liberation, gradually eroded some of the dominance of patriarchy in some societies, though it still persists.[1][2]

Sangdeboeuf seems to feel this is "Not supported by sources". Curious for the rationale there.

-- MC 2600:100C:B006:240:39EE:917F:46C9:F7DE (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The burden is on you to justify the addition. Please show how you think the sources support the proposed text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a convoluted argument. You made the deletion. The burden is on you to explain what it is you feel is insufficient or incorrect. In other words, if you feel there is something specific in the article text that is missing from the references, you need to say what that is. Otherwise you need to reverse your actions.
-- MC141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please point to the Wikpedia policy that says I "need to" reverse my actions, because I've never seen it. But since you insist, the first source (page 11) is about feminist perspectives in sociology as an academic discipline, not women's status in society generally; a passing remark that "women's perspectives are seen as more important now than in the past" in many countries is not elaborated upon. The second source (page 98) directly states that "women were rarely admitted" to the centers of power in communist societies. Neither mentions patriarchy or women's liberation directly. Women's suffrage is discussed only in relation to the "glossy image" of equality featured in communist propaganda. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Abbott, Pamela; Tyler, Melissa; Wallace, Claire (2005). An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. Routledge. p. 11.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Allen, Ann T. (2008). Women in Twentieth-Century Europe. Palgrave McMillan. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-403-94192-3.


I edited this sentence: "Most[vague] sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning are primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.[45][46]" to this: "Sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy[45] and contend that socialization processes are primarily responsible for establishing gender roles.[46]" --Deleted "most" that was noted as vague; --inserted sociological source to support claim about sociologists rejecting bio explanations; --deleted cultural conditioning and substituted socialization processes because sociologists write in terms of socialization; psychologists use the term conditioning, but sociologists rarely do; --deleted male and female because these terms conflate sex with gender and reproduce a false binary; sociologists do not understand gender as binary; --deleted Evolution of Human Sociality as a source because this is not a sociology text. It is an attempt at theoretical synthesis of anthropology and one sociological perspective, and therefore it is not an accurate reflection of what sociologists think about patriarchy and should not be used to make a sociological claim.AnaSoc (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I question your "sociologists do not understand gender as binary" claim, for various reasons. And many people (including scholars) do not follow the sex and gender distinction.
As stated here, I re-added the Encyclopædia Britannica piece, which is a WP:Tertiary source that assessed the literature. It need not fall into your definition of a sociology source or be a sociology source at all. And it's best not to give undue weight to a tiny society. I updated the statement since the quote has changed, and I provided URL link to the statement. Furthermore, like I noted here, there is clearly debate about whether the Mosuo are truly matriarchal; this is also currently noted in this section of that article. National Geographic calls the society "semi-matriarchal." And if you don't like me stating "debate," then just think of it as me stating "disagreement" or "some disagreement." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the fact that the Mosuo are also described as a matrilineal society should probably be mentioned. It's mentioned in the Mosuo article. The current text in the Patriarchy article gives the impression that they are separate from a matrilineal society. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the discussion. The Ency Brit quote that you dropped in is without context and therefore is being used here in a way that misleads readers. The statement refers to the anthropological and ethnographic discussions from the 19th through 20th centuries about whether matriarchies were part of cultural evolution processes, and not whether or not there are contemporary (or historical) matriarchies. Also, if you examine the source, you will see that the Mosuo are mentioned. I do not see the need to mention anything further about the Mosuo, since this article is about patriarchy, and not matriarchy. The article is too scattered with too much tangential information as it is.AnaSoc (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Ency Brit quote that you dropped in is different from the one that was previously cited. This is the previous version of the Ency Brit: "Although there are no known examples of strictly matriarchal cultures,[1]" Note, in particular, that last part of the statement which is the statement that I was questioning and for which I provided a reliable sociological source to dispute.AnaSoc (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of what the previous quote stated. It's why I stated that I "updated the statement since the quote has changed." As for the existence of matriarchal societies, what evidence is there? Your wording stated "limited evidence" and gave the Mosuo as an example. The original Encyclopædia Britannica version states what it states because the existence of true matriarchal societies, as distinct from matrilineal societies, having ever been a reality is very much disputed. This 2008 "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" source, page 1212, states, "Like other elements of the evolutionist view of culture, the notion of matriarchy as a universal state of development is now generally discredited, and the modern consensus is that a strictly matriarchal society has never existed. Nevertheless, in those societies in which matrilineal DESCENT occurs, access to socially powerful positions is mediated through the maternal line of kin." I noted that calling the Mosuo a matriarchal society is not entirely agreed upon. The Mosuo are often called a matrilineal society. Like this 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge" source, page 1551, states, "It is important to note that matriliny is not synonymous with matriarchy, in the sense that females in a matrilineal society never assume the same degree of control over males as their male counterparts in a patrilineal society have often done to their female kin." Above, we even see the National Geographic referring to the Mosuo as semi-matriarchal, which calls into question their power vs. men's power. The current text in the article could lead one to believe that the Mosuo are a matriarchal society but not a matrilineal society. It is not uncommon for sources to disagree with each other; this is where WP:Due weight comes in. Like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." In this case, we have sources stating that true matriarchal societies, as distinct from matrilineal societies, never existed, and the Wikipedia Patriarchy article seemingly presenting Mosuo as matriarchal. The Matriarchy article itself currently states, "A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems (Peggy Reeves Sanday favors redefining and reintroducing the word matriarchy, especially in reference to contemporary matrilineal societies such as the Minangkabau), but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined." As is clear, there is even disagreement about how to define matriarchy. And Peggy Reeves Sanday's personal view is also noted in the Mosuo article. So, yes, I question the inclusion of the Mosuo without context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  1. ^ "Matriarchy". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed.

Splitting up and expanding the History and origin of modern patriarchy section

I want to expand upon this section, but it seems that this section may benefit from being split into smaller subsections according to the eras of history which are being referred to. I'm thinking Pre-History, Ancient History, Post-Classical History, and Modern History. The section, as it exists, can be easily split into those sub-sections with minimal editing. The (currently) last two paragraphs, which at the moment lack citations, would need to be edited or moved for the section to sensibly be formatted this way, however. Hell ghost69 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and do that now! I hope this isn't too disruptive, it seems necessary to me however to further expand this section. Hell ghost69 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! I also added a lot of information about this sub-topic WRT Chinese history. I'm not sure what to do with the last two paragraphs, which seem out of place and are unsourced, I'm not 100% on the protocol there. Hell ghost69 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological versus social theories paragraph and "maschilist" paragraph

After reading the article, I believe that the Biological versus social theories paragraph is the one that creates the most confusion. When one comes to it one thinks that it will counterbalance the previous one "the feminist" paragraph, however it doesn't. Instead it is again a bunch of feminist ideas (badly stated) as to how the social theories are still valid in relation to the biological (i.e. scientific). That paragraph will require some work. Also, to have a balanced NPOV article, since there is a "feminist" paragraph, shouldn't there be a maschilist one? --1l2l3k (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not how NPOV works. We give greater weight to the views of published, reliable sources, with special emphasis on peer-reviewed or other scholarly works. If you want a "maschilist" perspective in the article, then it's on you to find relevant, published sources of comparable quality to the ones we already have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a maschilist side will need to be added (of course with reliable sources), to balance the feminist reliable sources. This is paramount for the improvement of the article, otherwise the article is one sided. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole nature vs. nurture dichotomy is seriously outdated. Neither sociologists nor biologists currently believe that only society or only biology are responsible for social structures like patriarchy (although they may focus on the influence of different aspects). The general scientific consensus is that both society and biology are part of a continually evolving feedback loop. Social structures influence gene expression and evolution (often on surprisingly short time scales) and our genes affect how we behave and interact socially. As this paper puts it: "Nature and nurture, of course, are not alternatives... By now most scientists reject both the nineteenth-century doctrine that biology is destiny and the twentieth-century doctrine that the mind is a blank slate." But regardless, this is all original research unless we have sources specifically discussing about how these ideas relate to patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Sparta11117: Per WP:BRD here is where you should attempt to form consensus for your changes once they have been contested. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah nah gonna have to hard disagree with you there. Talk is a valuable tool, especially in developing complex topics, but the classic going back and forward with different ideas and different people still makes for the best results. That is the nature of Wikipedia consensus. Edit boldly. Sparta11117 (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My goal was to prevent warring (when I noticed the second try), if you manage to avoid that alone, it's all for the best. If you no longer want to discuss it then that's fine too, of course. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jytdog: FYI There are no edit wars going on here, just friendly consensus. No rules requiring anyone to use the talk page. I would refrain from being overzealous. Sparta11117 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological versus social theories

So under the biology section, i found a mention of testosterone as the “male-hormone” and estrogen as the “female-hormone”. These were placed in quotations, and their effects on behavior and sex identity were emphasized, but no mention of physiological effects. I was going to mention how they also forge secondary sex characteristics, but I wasn’t sure if it was relevant. Thoughts? CPGACoast (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article presents an unbalanced view of the topic. Patriarchy is a concept used in feminist theory and, to a less extent, in sociology, its real existence is controversial even amongst the latter. Despite this, no information is given on this subjects nor on applications, limitations and historical manifestations of patriarchy across different cultures and society. Its existence is simply taken for granted. Although patriarchy is certainly a controversial topic, a presentation as such needs to be carefully balanced. What's more, there is not even one word about the use of the concept (political, social, revolutionary, etc.). A section on criticisms is also absent. The few criticism purported are feminisists' suggestions on how patriarchy should be understood rather than integration from different perspectives. In the end, the way the page is structured reflects more an indoctrinating purpose than the need to share reliable information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you tag the article? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it has been tagged, I'm happy to support the NPOV tag. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saying, "This article is unbalanced" doesn't make it so – ipse dixit. Please provide published, reliable sources that support a different assessment than the one currently in the article. Or make a different, concrete suggestion for improvement. Otherwise this is just NOTFORUM stuff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The {{POV}} template has been placed on the article twice now with no specific suggestion for improvement. The template page specifically states, "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" (emphasis added). Vague complaints with no published sources offered as a counterpoint do not present any issues that are "actionable within the content policies". For those who don't know, those policies are Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research. All depend on published, reliable sources. Since none have been put forward, I'm removing the tag now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The suggestion I made are to better structure the page and its content, not to distrupt it. Besides, they are very concrete critisms not vague. The fact that I made them several times and have never been taken seriously only proves that, despite all my attempts to change it, the pages keep being adjusted according to ideological goals. If you don' t agree, then be it, but my comments were perfectly in line with the NPOV requirements. Aristotele1982 (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pages keep being adjusted according to ideological goals please point where sources are being improperly summarized or which sources could be used for balance. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"better structure the page and its content" does not address POV issues. -- 2603:3024:200:300:B823:DF0F:39C1:BA79 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen a serious academic source that says patriarchy doesn't exist. I've seen sources debating whether it is universal or not, but never a source arguing that patriarchy just doesn't exist and women have just as much power as men. Although such claims would appear at face value to be absurd, I would be interested in considering them, and possibly incorporating them, if they were presented (and were in fact reliable, non-fringe sources). Without any sources to back up such an argument, however, I would consider it dubious at best and POV-pushing at worst. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addressing the problem of additional sources to be quoted, it is important to note that the article lacks references to the critics of patriarchy as a trans-historical phenomenon, as pointed out by Joan Acker, "The Problem with Patriarchy", Sociology 23/2, 1989: 235-240 and others. In general, the article does not address any other perpsective but the feminist one, which proves my point about the NPOV and its being ideological. As a result, I'll keep tagging it under NPOV up to the standard of scientificity and rigour shared by wiki-users will be met.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 08:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And others will continue to revert you until you offer concrete, actionable suggestions within Wikipedia's content policies. The absence of your preferred sources does not imply "ideological" motives, so kindly stop casting such aspersions. There is such a thing as due weight in sourcing. Please indicate what specific changes you wish to be made to the article, using references to reliable, published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The presentation of a controversial topic from one side only of the cultural spectrum, is in iteslf ideological, Ideology being "a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons". In my last remarks I pointed to at least one article that offers critical perspectives on patriarchy. It is not my task to write on this page, I can just limit myself to point out its weak points. Who said I have to add to the page if I add the label NPOV? It is not my intention to disrupt, but to improve the article by making it balanced (I cannot use the word "more" balanced, as it is too one-sided now, and there is no balance whatsoever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 13:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sangdeboeuf, due weight doesn't mean supporting the feminist viewpoint, and indeed is why the article is tagged. Kaldari, your expressed opinions here are not themselves neutral or interesting or relevant, not everyone shares your ideas on what is absurd let alone your controversials and feminist-inspired claim that men have more power than women. If we can't express balanced views we should be cautious of saying anything at all. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please provide published, reliable sources that support your claims, and indicate how you're like to see them worked into the article. Otherwise this discussion is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Misrepresenting Kaldari's statements as "opinion" is a deliberate attempt to undermine them. There are very few people in academia who object to the existence of patriarchy, whether you like it or not, though its scope is another issue. Anti-feminism is a fringe view. Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a Few articles or books the criticize or pdebunk patriarchy as a concept and its applications: Sylvia Walby, Theorising Patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1989), pp. 213-234, Christian Hoff Summers, Who stole Feminism? (1994); Joan Acker, The Problem with patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1989), pp. 235-240; Anna Pollert, Gender and Class Revisited or the Poverty of Patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 4 (November 1996), pp. 639-659. So to be clear that much can be done to improve this session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 16:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop edit warring by repeatedly adding the tag back. Per WP:BRD you now need consensus on this page before the tag can be re-added.
Have you read any of these sources? Sylvia Walby's Theorising Patriarchy opens with "Why are women disadvantaged compared to men? [...] This book aims to be, firstly, a comprehensive overview of the variety of ways of explaining women's subordination in contemporary society". It's a far cry from "the patriarchy doesn't exist", which is your nonsense argument. In fact it fits into the very category you complained about earlier: "The few criticism purported are feminisists' suggestions on how patriarchy should be understood rather than integration from different perspectives." Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it isn't, Bilorv, and you need to assume good faith and stop making outlandish accusations. I have not undermined them even slightly. People with strong feminist views are unlikely to achieve a neutral article on this subject. I agree that the article needs working on but this is made hard by people with strong feelings and opinions reverting anything they disagree with. "few" is a vague term, there are academics who don't agree with the feminist, leftist views on patriarchy which dominate this article. Aristotele1982, can you add those sources? This could be just what is needed to break the deadlock. I don't want this article to be a debunking of patriarchy, just one that includes all relevant opinion and not solely feminist and left-wing ones. The thread indicates the tag is vey much needed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bilorv, the tag should not be removed till the discussion is finished and a consensus reached. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't edit war but I disagree. The tag is also not in the right place: it's above the hatnote. Your assertions of mainstream academics that disagree with feminism are, again, unsubstantiated, given that the sources above are not what the editor claimed they were. (I took a look at their next source and Christina Hoff Sommers—not "Christian Hoff Summers"—is a feminist!) Your conflation of feminism with leftism is bizarre. Attacking alleged biases of the editors of the article (or perhaps me—I can't tell who you're addressing) is no help. Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of those sources don't really support what you're saying (and Sommers is definitely not mainstream.) Either way, nobody has proposed any concrete changes. I don't think there's any point in adding the tag until we have mainstream WP:RS sources to support the idea that the current version isn't reflective of the literature, coupled with specific changes cited to them that people want to add. Without that, there's nothing to debate and no serious dispute. I suggest that the people currently edit-warring to add the tag instead devote their effort to laying out concrete, well-sourced proposals so we can actually have something meaningful to discuss. --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, and at the risk of being repetitive, the article is unbalanced. To 'Bilorv, you did not read any of the sources I suggested. Christina Hoff Sommers is a critic of the concept of Patriarchy. This article instead, often conflates some feminists point of view with other that are unsupportive of it, and especially the terms "patriarchy" and "gender inequality" which are different. The very fact that patriarchy is a word created in the 1970s by the radical feminists provides enough proof to the fact that is ideological. If any of you would take the pain to read Anna Pollert's article, will see that patriarchy is a reductionist concept. At any rate, I will add an entire section under criticisms, with notes to academic articles (taken from Jstor). If the section will be reverted or removed without any reasons, I will tag the article as ideological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walby is quoted twice in the article for her comments about what patriarchy is, and I quoted above her comments in the source you gave which demonstrate she is supportive of the concept of patriarchy. Of course it's an ideological concept... as opposed to what? A physical force? Feel free to write a criticism section but you'll need to abide by policy, such as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and your edits can be "mercilessly edited" as anyone sees fit. Also, please remember to sign your posts by ending them with ~~~~. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aristotele1982: Please stop using Wikipedia tools like maintenance tags to bludgeon others into doing what you want. Abusing maintenance tags is disruptive. If you place a maintenance tag on the article in retaliation for editors not accepting your edits, then it will be immediately removed. Please try to avoid treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LISTEN to what others are telling you. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christina Hoff Sommers is a critic of the concept of Patriarchy. Sommers is also a resident with the conservative American Enterprise Institute and has her own political axe to grind. She is a cultural commentator, not a sociologist. If you can find any high-level academic sources that give her critique serious consideration, I'd be very surprised. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do we know that prehistoric hunter gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian?

I checked the sources and I could’t find any evidence for the claim. Jounus (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer(s) is readily available. See this Google search, for example. You could find more academic sources in more specialized databases. Caballero/Historiador 00:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be interested in what kind of archaeological evidence we have from prehistoric hunter gatherer societies that they were relatively egalitarian. It is not in the sources given on the Wikipedia page of this article. Additionaly there is a StackExchange discussion about this: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/47621/how-do-we-know-that-prehistoric-hunter-gatherer-societies-were-egalitarian Jounus (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article takes the term patriarchy as a fact rather than a theory developed through time. As far as I know, this is false in all published literature, as patriarchy refers to a status quo that sociology and anthropology aim at explaining but with a different subset of arguments. In Biology, for instance, patriarchy is a non-thing. Therefore the need to contextualise this a bit more.Aristotele1982 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]